DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 4 December 2025 in regard to application no. 18/631,275. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner maintains the claim interpretations as set forth in the Office action mailed 11 September 2025.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process) or a system or device (machine). The claim(s) recite(s) determining a score in no particular manner, identifying a device from a list in no particular manner, determining an improvement to the score in no particular manner, displaying the result, obtaining an image and determining, from the image, that a device has been installed. All of this is related to a score which “may be important to an insurance company” (Spec. ¶ 3) and to recommending a purchase to a person.
Determining insurance scores and recommending purchases are fundamental business practices or commercial interactions that long predate computers, and the claims therefore recite a process that is among the "certain methods of organizing human activity" deemed abstract. Further, in the absence of computers, these are steps that can be performed mentally or with paper records. An insurance adjuster can determine a preliminary score for a home based on paper charts, can look at a picture taken within a home and mentally observe some device such as a smoke detector or deadbolt lock has been installed, can recommend additional purchases to a homeowner e.g. verbally, and can update the score mentally based on the observation. None of this presents any practical difficulty and none requires any technology beyond a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data regarding home security scores and inputs into such scores, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim to patent eligibility.
Claim 17, which has the most, includes a processor, memory storing instructions, and a display. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, ¶ 659, that nothing more than a "general-purpose processor" is required, which encompasses a generic computer. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered in ordered combination - a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps - do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2-5, 10, 16 and 20 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 18 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 8, 15 and 19 consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, and claim 12 simply recites nondescript use of machine learning.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 - 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance", 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman et al. (WIPO Publication No. 2018/052595) in view of Bhatnagar (U.S. Patent No. 11,790,521, filed 10 April 2020).
In-line citations are to Hsu-Hoffman.
With regard to Claim 1:
Hsu-Hoffman teaches: A computer-implemented method [020; a "computer system" is used] for recommending a device to purchase to improve a home score, [Sheet 6, Fig. 6] comprising:
determining, via one or more processors, at least one of an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore for a home; [078; Sheet 7, Figs. 7A-B; safety scores are computed and displayed; abstract; this can be done for a home as well as for a vehicle]
identifying, via the one or more processors, a device from a device catalog comprising a table comprising fields including a brand field, a model field or a price field; [033; a list of assets is recorded including information about models]
determining, via the one or more processors, a home score improvement that adding the device to the home would make for the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore; [024; "identifying actions to increase the safety score and providing changes to the safety score in real time" 034; such an improvement may be the installation of fire extinguishers] displaying, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement on a display; [024; Figs 7A-B as cited above]
Hsu-Hoffman does not explicitly teach receiving, via the one or more processors, imagery data acquired by: (i) a mobile device, or (ii) a smart home device, or determining, via the one or more processors, based upon the received imagery data, that installation of the device is complete, but it is known in the art. Bhatnagar teaches a system for managing installation of devices. [abstract] It receives a “photograph recorded by [a] camera of [a] mobile device after completion of a first work order” and evaluates the photograph, identifying “one or more expected components involved in the installation”. [claim 1] The system determines from the photo that the work has been completed “in accordance with [a] work order”. [Col. 4, lines 13-15] Bhatnagar and Hsu-Hoffman are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing information related to installations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bhatnagar with that of Hsu-Hoffman in order to improve speed and privacy, as taught by Bhatnagar; [Col. 4, lines 7-8] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Bhatnagar’s step after the installation of Hsu-Hoffman. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
With regard to Claim 2:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the determining the at least one of the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore comprises determining the home safety subscore;
the determining the home score improvement comprises determining a home score improvement that adding the device to the home would make for the home safety subscore; and
the device comprises: a deadbolt lock, a security camera, a motion detector, or a smart outdoor lightbulb. [045; a recommendation may be made for something do improve "home and/or automobile theft protection; 048; this may include "cameras"]
With regard to Claim 3:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the determining the at least one of the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore comprises determining the fire protection subscore;
the determining the home score improvement comprises determining a home score improvement that adding the device to the home would make for the fire protection subscore; and
the device comprises: a smoke detector, an indoor sprinkler system, or a security camera. [045, 048 as cited above; also something to detect "smoke" could be used]
With regard to Claim 8:
The computer-implemented. method of claim 1, wherein the displaying further comprises displaying text explaining why the device improves the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and which is therefore considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 10:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determination of the home score improvement is based upon an existing number of devices already in the home with a same device type as the device. [054; the number and location of smoke detectors is considered when "calculat[ing] a safety score and providing recommendations" which could, as cited above, include adding a smoke detector]
With regard to Claim 11:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing, via the one or more processors, an insurance profile associated with a life insurance policy of an insurance customer to obtain an inventory list; and
determining, via the one or more processors, from the inventory list, an existing number of devices already in the home with a same device type as the device; and
wherein the determination of the home score improvement is based upon the existing number of devices already in the home with a same device type as the device. [054, as cited above in regard to claim 10]
That an insurance profile "is associated with a life insurance policy of an insurance customer" consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 13:
Hsu-Hoffman teaches: A computer system for recommending a device to purchase to improve a home score, the system comprising one or more processors [021; "processor"] configured to:
determine at least one of an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore for a home; [078; Sheet 7, Figs. 7A-B; safety scores are computed and displayed; abstract; this can be done for a home as well as for a vehicle]
identify a device from a device catalog comprising a table comprising fields including a brand field, a model field or a price field; [033; a list of assets is recorded including information about models]
determine a home score improvement that adding the device to the home would make for the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore; [024; "identifying actions to increase the safety score and providing changes to the safety score in real time" 034; such an improvement may be the installation of fire extinguishers]
display the home score improvement on a display; [024; Figs 7A-B as cited above]
Hsu-Hoffman does not explicitly teach receive imagery data acquired by: (i) a mobile device, or (ii) a smart home device, or determine, based upon the received imagery data, that installation of the device is complete, but it is known in the art. Bhatnagar teaches a system for managing installation of devices. [abstract] It receives a “photograph recorded by [a] camera of [a] mobile device after completion of a first work order” and evaluates the photograph, identifying “one or more expected components involved in the installation”. [claim 1] The system determines from the photo that the work has been completed “in accordance with [a] work order”. [Col. 4, lines 13-15] Bhatnagar and Hsu-Hoffman are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing information related to installations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bhatnagar with that of Hsu-Hoffman in order to improve speed and privacy, as taught by Bhatnagar; [Col. 4, lines 7-8] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Bhatnagar’s step after the installation of Hsu-Hoffman. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
With regard to Claim 15:
The computer system of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform the display by displaying the home score improvement along with text explaining why the device improves the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 13 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and which is therefore considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 16:
The computer system of claim 13, wherein the determination of the home score improvement is based upon an existing number of devices already in the home with a same device type as the device. [054, as cited above in regard to claim 10]
With regard to Claim 17:
Hsu-Hoffman teaches: A computer device for recommending a device to purchase to improve a home score, the computer device comprising:
one or more processors; [021; "processor"] and
one or more non-transitory memories; the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereupon computer-executable instructions [022; a memory stores instructions for execution by the processor] that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer device to:
determine at least one of an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore for a home; [078; Sheet 7, Figs. 7A-B; safety scores are computed and displayed; abstract; this can be done for a home as well as for a vehicle]
identify a device from a device catalog comprising a table comprising fields including a brand field, a model field or a price field; [033; a list of assets is recorded including information about models]
determine a home score improvement that adding the device to the home would make for the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore; [024; "identifying actions to increase the safety score and providing changes to the safety score in real time" 034; such an improvement may be the installation of fire extinguishers]
display the home score improvement on a display; [024; Figs 7A-B as cited above]
Hsu-Hoffman does not explicitly teach receive imagery data acquired by: (i) a mobile device, or (ii) a smart home device, or determine, based upon the received imagery data, that installation of the device is complete, but it is known in the art. Bhatnagar teaches a system for managing installation of devices. [abstract] It receives a “photograph recorded by [a] camera of [a] mobile device after completion of a first work order” and evaluates the photograph, identifying “one or more expected components involved in the installation”. [claim 1] The system determines from the photo that the work has been completed “in accordance with [a] work order”. [Col. 4, lines 13-15] Bhatnagar and Hsu-Hoffman are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing information related to installations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bhatnagar with that of Hsu-Hoffman in order to improve speed and privacy, as taught by Bhatnagar; [Col. 4, lines 7-8] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Bhatnagar’s step after the installation of Hsu-Hoffman. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
With regard to Claim 19:
The computer device of claim 17, wherein the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer device to perform the display by displaying the home score improvement along with text explaining why the device improves the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 17 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and which is therefore considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 20:
The computer device of claim 17, wherein the determination of the home score improvement is based upon an existing number of devices already in the home with a same device type as the device. [054, as cited above in regard to claim 10]
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman et al. in view of Bhatnagar further in view of Phung (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0337145)
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 4:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the determining the at least one of the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore comprises determining the sustainability subscore;
the determining the home score improvement comprises determining a home score improvement that adding the device to the home would make for the sustainability subscore; and
the device comprises: a smart thermostat, a smart washing machine, a smart dryer, or a light emitting diode (LED) lightbulb.
With regard to Claim 5:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the determining the at least one of the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore comprises determining the home automation subscore;
the determining the home score improvement comprises determining a home score improvement that adding the device to the home would make for the home automation subscore; and
the device comprises: a smart thermostat, a smart washing machine, a smart dryer, a smart stove, a smart refrigerator, or a smart lightbulb.
Hsu-Hoffman and Bhatnagar teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach that data represents these specific devices, but it is known in the art. Phung teaches a system for promoting environmentally-friendly practices [abstract] which can provide "green ratings" for a building based on having installed, e.g., a "roof-top solar system". [0002] This may be influenced by such items as "smart thermostats". [0030] Phung and Hsu-Hoffman are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for rating buildings based on items deposed on or in the buildings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Phung with that of Hsu- Hoffman and Bhatnagar, as market forces at the time were increasingly driving people to make buildings more environmentally friendly; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting a datum in the manner of Phung rather than that of Hsu-Hoffman; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman et al. in view of Bhatnagar further in view of Matsuoka et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0061859).
With regard to Claim 6:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, via the one or more processors, potential placement locations of the device; and
determining, via the one or more processors, respective improvements that placing the device in each of the potential placement locations would make for the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore; and
wherein the displaying includes displaying, via the one or more processors, on the display, respective indications of the respective improvements that placing the device in each of the potential placement locations would make.
Hsu-Hoffman and Bhatnagar teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach determining a placement, but it is known in the art. Matsuoka teaches a system for security scoring in a smart-sensored home. [title] A security score may be "based on information" such as "placement of network-connected smart devices" and may be a basis for a determination related to "insurance". [0072] The system may "provide[] suggestions regarding how to improve security scores" in order to obtain "discounts". [id.] Matsuoka and Hsu-Hoffman are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing recommendations to improve a score related to a home.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matsuoka with that of Hsu- Hoffman and Bhatnagar in order to incentivize a customer to improve security, as taught by Matsuoka; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply basing a score on Matsuoka's data in place of, or in addition to, that of Hsu-Hoffman; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
The content of information that is merely transmitted or displayed and then not further processed, such as "respective indications of the respective improvements that placing the device in each of the potential placement locations would make", consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which is considered but given no patentable weight.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman et al. in view of Bhatnagar further in view of Davis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0158450).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 7:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the one or more processors, a selection of the device from the mobile device; and
in response to receiving the selection, initiating, via the one or more processors, a purchase of the device.
With regard to Claim 14:
The computer system of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive a selection of the device from a mobile device; and
in response to receiving the selection, initiate a purchase of the device.
With regard to Claim 18:
The computer device of claim 17, wherein the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer device to:
receive a selection of the device from a mobile device; and
in response to receiving the selection, initiate a purchase of the device.
Hsu-Hoffman and Bhatnagar teach the method of claim 1, system of claim 13 and device of claim 17, but do not explicitly teach this purchasing process, but it is known in the art. Davis teaches an insurance enrollment system [abstract] in which a "mobile device" may be used to select and "purchase and install" a "security system" in order to qualify for an "insurance discount". [0133] Davis and Hsu- Hoffman are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for determining measures of home security.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Davis with that of Hsu- Hoffman and Bhatnagar in order to incentivize a security improvement, as taught by Davis; further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply allowing a person to make a purchase, as in Davis, after a recommendation such as that of Davis or Hsu-Hoffman. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman et al. in view of Bhatnagar further in view of Carlson (WIPO Publication No. 2024/007066, filed 23 September 2022).
With regard to Claim 9:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein (1) the device is a first device, (ii) the home score improvement is a first home score improvement, and (iii) the method further comprises:
determining, via the one or more processors, a second home score improvement that adding a second device to the home would make for the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore; and
ranking, via the one or more processors, the first device and the second device based upon the first home score improvement and the second home score improvement to thereby create a ranked list of devices; and
wherein the displaying includes displaying, via the one or more processors, the ranked list of devices.
Hsu-Hoffman and Bhatnagar teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach this ranking, but it is known in the art. Carlson teaches a risk profiling system for a dwelling [title] in which a ranking is associated with the use of a plurality of dwelling sensors within a security alarm system. [0034] An insurance premium may be adjusted based on the information. [abstract] Carlson and Hsu-Hoffman are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing insurance-related information pertaining to a home.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Carlson with that of Hsu- Hoffman and Bhatnagar in order to improve safe behavior, as taught by Carlson; [003] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Carlson's ranking after gathering the data of either Carlson or Hsu-Hoffman. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
That a display includes "the ranked list of devices" consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. Simply providing a score related to two inputs rather than one is a mere duplication of parts which produces no new and unexpected result and is therefore considered but given no patentable weight.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman et al. in view of Bhatnagar further in view of Buehrle et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,073,477, filed 27 May 2021).
With regard to Claim 12:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors determine the home score improvement by using a home score improvement machine learning model trained using insurance claims data.
Hsu-Hoffman and Bhatnagar teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach the use of machine learning, but it is known in the art. Buehrle teaches a data analysis system [title] that can provide a "home insurance quote" based on a "risk factor" related to "smart home activity". [Col. 1, lines 63-65] It may create the risk factor using a "machine learning engine", [Col. 2, line 6] which has been trained on training data. [Col. 8, lines 57-59] Buehrle and Hsu-Hoffman are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing information related to home insurance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Buehrle with that of Hsu-Hoffman and Bhatnagar, as market forces at the time were increasingly driving developers to use machine learning techniques in all manner of applications; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Buehrle's trained algorithm in place of the algorithm of Hsu-Hoffman; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Referring to a machine-learning algorithm as a "home score improvement machine learning model" is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. As the training takes place outside the scope of the claimed process, details of the training, such as the type of data used, are considered but given no patentable weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Though the applicant states, referring to the specification, that verifying a user’s input improves “accuracy and reliability of the system”, the Examiner does not see how it improves any system in any way; at most, it improves accuracy of the data, but this is no different in effect from a human process of looking at a photograph of (let’s say) an installed smoke detector to verify that it had been installed. In regard to step 2B, the applicant refers only to abstract steps of the invention, and verifying image data is, again, a routine mental process. The combination is just what the Examiner has characterized it as: a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps. The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 in regard to rejections made under §§ 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Arguments in regard to § 102 are moot, first because the Examiner has not made any rejection herein on that basis, and second because, to the extent the Examiner agrees that Hsu-Hoffman does not teach all of the limitations added in the present amendment, the Examiner has incorporated herein the teaching of Bhatnagar to meet the additional limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694