CTNF 18/631,275 CTNF 89427 DETAILED ACTION This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 1 April 2026 in regard to application no. 18/631,275. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 from a catalog 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. That the device is from a “device catalog” does not change the analysis at all, as it has no impact on the claimed process; it is merely a source of information, as catalogs typically are. 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)). Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 1 April 2026 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The purported improvement to “accuracy and reliability” is not a technical improvement – that is, it does not improve the functioning of a computer – but rather serves a business purpose, in that it “makes it more difficult for users to cheat” by falsifying information, referring to the paragraph cited by the applicant. Preventing users from cheating is a business improvement and not a technical improvement . Analyzing the claims as a whole, referring to the portion of the Guidance cited by the applicant, specifies that it is the “way in which the additional elements user or interact with the [abstract idea]”. [Emphasis added] The applicant simply recites the abstract steps, but it is the interaction of the abstraction with the additional elements that is considered at this step, and, as was indicated (previously and above), the claimed interaction does not go beyond the general. The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained. Conclusion As no rejection is made herein under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103, a brief review of the state of the art at the relevant time – the present claims have priority to April 2023 – is in order. In the previous Office action, claims were rejected based on various combinations of the following references: Hsu-Hoffman et al., Bhatnagar, Phung, Matsuoka et al., Davis et al., Carlson, and Buehrle et al. As the claims have been amended, further search and consideration were conducted. In addition to the prior art previously made of record, Helms et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,313,458) disclose a downloadable security method [title] which includes a service manager responsible for “configuration and management of broadcast media” which includes a “service catalog”. [Col. 33, lines 29-30, 33] After installing software, it notifies a system “once the installation is complete”. [Col. 50, lines 8-11] However, this is not related in any way to home security or rating a home in any way, and it is not identical to detecting installation of a device from a catalog, a feature of the present claims found neither in Helms nor the prior art previously made of record, alone or if combined. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/631,275 Page 2 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/631,275 Page 3 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/631,275 Page 4 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/631,275 Page 5 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/631,275 Page 6 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/631,275 Page 7 Art Unit: 3694
Prosecution Insights