Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 30th of March 2026.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, 16-19 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 01/06/2026 and 04/03/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30th of March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues “…Applicant respectfully submits that Amended claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” And further argues “…the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant further elaborated on that the claimed invention collects additional data to determine whether an event has occurred that may damage or has damaged, the insured asset, and then sends a control signal to stop the event. However, these steps merely automated the process of reducing the risk of loss to the insured asset. Merely automating the abstract idea does not provide a technological solution to a technological problem. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejections.
Art rejections were updated to address the newly added limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…receiving…data from a plurality of data sources, the plurality of data sources including: smart home devices, a weather database, an insurance company, a real estate & property data company, artificial intelligence (AI) company, an electrical data company, a security company, and/or a property risk data company; Based upon the received data, determining, via the one mor more processors, determining to request additional data from the plurality of data sources; requesting, via the one or more processors, the additional data from the plurality of data sources; receiving, via the one more processors, the additional data; determining…based upon the received additional data from the plurality of data sources, that an event has occurred that will damage or has damage an insured asset; and initiating…an action based upon the determination that the event has occurred by sending a control signal to a physical device.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interactions, namely determining an event that damaged an insured asset. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g. processors). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g. processors) to receive/transmit data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g. processors) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g. processors) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 11 and 16.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 12, and 17, the additional limitations of these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims recite using interface to “presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, an instruction or suggestion to protect the insured asset.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data displaying, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claims 3, 13, and 18, the additional limitations of these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims recite using interface to “presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, a question asking if the insured asset has been damaged; presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, a question asking if an insurance customer would like to place an insurance claim for the insured asset; or electronically placing, via the one or more processors, an insurance claim for the insured asset.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data displaying, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claims 4, 14, and 19, the additional limitations of these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims recite using interface to “presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, a list of suggested vendors to repair or replace the insured asset.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data displaying, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claims 5, 15, and 20, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein the insured asset comprises a house, an automobile, a motorcycle, or a boat.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 6, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further defined event as, “…wherein the event comprises a burst pipe, and wherein the action comprises: shutting off a water valve; and/or presenting a warning advising that water should be shut off.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 7, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further added, “…receiving, via the one or more processors, weather data from the weather database; the determining to request additional data includes analyzing, via the one or more processors, the received weather data; the requesting the additional data includes requesting, via the one or more processors, based upon the analysis of the weather data, smart home data from the smart home devices; and the receiving the additional data includes receiving, via the one or more processors, the smart home data in response to the request; and the determining that the event has occurred comprises determining that the event has occurred based upon the received smart home data.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 8, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further added, “…receiving, via the one or more processors, insurance claims data from the insurance company; the determining to request additional data includes analyzing, via the one or more processors, the received insurance claims data; the requesting the additional data includes requesting, via the one or more processors, based upon the analysis of the insurance claims data, smart home data from the smart home devices; and the receiving the additional data includes receiving, via the one or more processors, the smart home data in response to the request; and the determining that the event has occurred comprises determining that the event has occurred based upon the received smart home data.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 9, the recited limitations of this claim merely further defined the generic computer component “machine learning model” to train specific data for event determination. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 10, the recited limitations of this claim merely further defined the generic computer component “machine learning model” to train specific data for remedial action. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5-6, 11-13, 15, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (hereinafter “Banerjee”); (US 2022/0318923 A1) in view of Kloeppel et al. (hereinafter "Kloeppel"); (US 2024/0119535 A1) in further view of Alsubai et al. (hereinafter "Alsubai"); (US 2022/0300840 A1).
As per Claims 1, 11, and 16:
Banerjee as shown discloses the following limitations:
receiving, via one or more processors, data from a plurality of data sources, the plurality of data sources including: smart home devices, a weather database, an insurance company, a real estate & property data company, artificial intelligence (AI) company, an electrical data company, a security company, and/or a property risk data company; (See at least Fig. 9, Item 901)
determining, via the one or more processors, based upon the received data from the plurality of data sources, that an event has occurred that will damage or has damage an insured asset; and (See at least Fig. 9, Item 909)
However, Banerjee specifically does not mention the following limitation. But Kloeppel discloses the following limitations:
based upon the received data, determining, via the one or more processors, determining to request additional data from the plurality of data sources; requesting, via the one or more processors, the additional data from the plurality of data sources; receiving, via the one or more processors, the additional data; (See at least Paragraph 0095, “…in response to detecting the event…may request additional data from the home…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claims damage estimation system of Banerjee the ability to collect additional data as taught by Kloeppel since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Additionally, Banerjee specifically does not mention the following limitation. But Alsubai discloses the following limitations:
initiating, via the one or more processors, an action based upon the determination that the event has occurred by sending a control signal to a physical device. (See at least Paragraph 0039, “…electronic alert signal is transmitted…automatically turn of water to a building or a particular floor of a building...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claims damage estimation system of Banerjee the ability to transmit control signal to the device as taught by Alsubai since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 2, 12, and 17:
Banerjee as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the action comprises presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, an instruction or suggestion to protect the insured asset. (See at least Fig. 9, Item 913)
As per Claims 3, 13, and 18:
Banerjee as shown discloses the following limitations:
presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, a question asking if the insured asset has been damaged; (See at least Fig. 4, Item 401, 403, and 405, specific input requests/questions related to accident were given out, also see Fig. 7, Item 803, “Could you please take a close up shot of the damage?”)
presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, a question asking if an insurance customer would like to place an insurance claim for the insured asset; or electronically placing, via the one or more processors, an insurance claim for the insured asset. (See at least Fig.12, Item 1201, claim filing application)
As per Claims 5, 15, and 20:
Banerjee as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the insured asset comprises a house, an automobile, a motorcycle, or a boat. (See at least Fig. 4, Item 403)
As per Claim 6:
Furthermore, Alsubai discloses the following limitations:
wherein the event comprises a burst pipe, and wherein the action comprises: shutting off a water valve; and/or presenting a warning advising that water should be shut off. (See at least Paragraph 0039, “…automatically turn of water to a building or a particular floor of a building...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claims damage estimation system of Banerjee the ability to automatically shut-off the water value as taught by Alsubai since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai in further view of Schmitt et al. (hereinafter "Schmitt"); (US 2009/0326989 A1).
As per Claims 4, 14, and 19:
Combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai does not disclose the following limitation. But, Schmitt discloses the following limitations:
wherein the action comprises presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, a list of suggested vendors to repair or replace the insured asset. (See at least Paragraph 0032, “…via links to vendors of replacement items...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claims damage estimation system of Banerjee the ability to provide links to list of vendors as taught by Schmitt since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai in further view of Mast et al. (hereinafter "Mast"); (US 2023/0021783 A1).
As per Claim 7:
Combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai does not disclose the following limitation. But, Mast discloses the following limitations:
receiving, via the one or more processors, weather data from the weather database;
analyzing, via the one or more processors, the received weather data; requesting, via the one or more processors, based upon the analysis of the weather data, smart home data from the smart home devices; and receiving, via the one or more processors, the smart home data in response to the request; and determining that the event has occurred comprises determining that the event has occurred based upon the received smart home data. (See at least Paragraph 0009, “…the weather data is associated with the particular weather…receiving hail data…image data, video data, or audio data collected by a smart home device: estimating at least one attribute of image data…generating the event driven probable roof loss...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claims damage estimation system of Banerjee the ability to determine the event based on weather data and sensor data as taught by Mast since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 8:
Combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai does not disclose the following limitation. But, Mast discloses the following limitations:
receiving, via the one or more processors, insurance claims data from the insurance company; analyzing, via the one or more processors, the received insurance claims data;
requesting, via the one or more processors, based upon the analysis of the insurance claims data, smart home data from the smart home devices; and receiving, via the one or more processors, the smart home data in response to the request; and determining that the event has occurred comprises determining that the event has occurred based upon the received smart home data. (See at least Fig. 4B, Item 410b and 435b, where building data includes “insurance claim record” (paragraph 0089))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claims damage estimation system of Banerjee the ability to determine the event based on insurance data and sensor data as taught by Mast since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 9:
Combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai does not disclose the following limitation. But, Mast discloses the following limitations:
training, via the one or more processors, an event determination machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the event determination machine learning algorithm, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables comprising (a) historical weather data, (b) historical insurance claims data, and/or (c) historical smart device data, and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical events; and determining, via the one or more processors, the event by routing the received data from the plurality of data sources into the event determination machine learning algorithm. (See at least Paragraph 0091, “…analyze the building data, using any one of…automated techniques including machine learning…estimate at least one characteristic”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claims damage estimation system of Banerjee the ability to determine the event using machine learning model as taught by Mast since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 10:
Combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, combination of Banerjee, Kloeppel, and Alsubai does not disclose the following limitation. But, Mast discloses the following limitations:
training, via the one or more processors, a remedial action machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the remedial action machine learning algorithm, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables comprising (a) historical determined events, (b) historical weather data, and/or (c) historical smart device data, and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical remedial actions; and wherein initiating the action includes determining, via the one or more processors, the action by routing the received data from the plurality of data sources into the remedial action machine learning algorithm. (See at least Paragraph 0091, “…analyze the building data, using any one of…automated techniques including machine learning…”, Fig. 4H, Item 430h, “Generate insurance property loss mitigation data”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the claims damage estimation system of Banerjee the ability to determine the remedial action using machine learning model as taught by Mast since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 06/13/2026
Prosecution Insights