DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2/11/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application No. 18/631,275 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim is to a method (i.e., a process), claim 13 to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 18 to a device (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1, 13, and 18 is:
identify an existing device;
determining, based upon the received signal, that the existing device has a status of damaged, broken, expired, or low on electrical energy;
in response to the determination based upon the received signal, determine a home score improvement that: (i) replacing the existing device would make for an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore, and/or (ii) repairing the existing device 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
display the home score improvement.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level, evaluating a home improvement associated with repair and/or replacement of a device. This is something that an administrator could perform, either mentally or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions pertaining to determining a home improvement based on replacing and/or repairing an existing device, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: computer-implemented; one or more processors; receiving, via the one or more processors, a signal from the identified existing device; display.
Claim 13 recites the following additional elements: computer system; one or more processors; receive a signal from the identified existing device; display.
Claim 18 recites the following additional elements: computer device; one or more processors; one or more non-transitory memories; the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; receive a signal from the identified existing device; display.
These elements, with the exception of “receiving, via the one or more processors, a signal from the identified existing device” (claim 1 being representative, similar language found in claims 13 and 18), are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0071]-[0074] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. The limitation “receiving, via the one or more processors, a signal from the identified existing device” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, per MPEP 2106.05(g), since it merely describes a mere data gathering step, performed prior to any analysis.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea, one that facilitates the transmission and receipt of data. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f), (g).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation “receiving, via the one or more processors, a signal from the identified existing device” is reevaluated Step 2B; however, it’s still not significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See citations to Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea, one that facilitates the transmission and receipt of data. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2-3, 14-15, and 19 recite additional abstract steps and/or information that merely narrow the abstract idea highlighted above. The further additional elements of these claims (claims 2, 14, and 19: a smart main water shutoff valve, a security camera, a smart outdoor lightbulb, a smoke detector, or a smart thermostat; claims 3 and 15: a smart main water shutoff valve, a security camera, an indoor sprinkler system, a smart washing machine, a smart dryer, or a smart refrigerator) merely indicate a field of use, which doesn’t integrate the narrowed abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more, whether viewed alone or in combination with the additional elements from above. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 4-6, 11, 16-17, and 20 recite additional abstract steps and/or information that merely narrow the abstract idea highlighted above. There are no further additional elements, beyond those highlighted above. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Dependent claims 7-10 recite additional abstract steps and/or information that merely narrow the abstract idea highlighted above. The further additional elements of these claims (claims 7 and 8: mobile device; claim 9: using a home score improvement machine learning model trained using insurance claims data; claim 10: mobile device; smart home device), which are claimed in a results-oriented manner, merely facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. These further additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more, whether viewed alone or in combination with the additional elements from above. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-6, 10, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 20210090188) in view of Jordan (US 10346811).
Claims 1, 13, and 18
Lai discloses:
(Clam 1) A computer-implemented method for determining an improvement to a home score for replacing or repairing an existing device based upon a device status determination comprising:
{computer-implemented method described in [0002] and Claim 1 of Lai.
determining an improvement to a home score for replacing or repairing an existing device described in [0028]: In addition to or in lieu of determining a health score, the health score can be used to determine maintenance actions that should be performed. For example, the controller 110 can determine actions that would increase the health score of the home, such as, but not limited to, replacing/repairing a room, routine service on an HVAC system, recommended maintenance of appliances (e.g. based on manufacturer recommendations or crowdsourced data on maintenance actions regularly taken by other property owners), etc. By determining items based on the health score, the controller 110 can help improve the condition of the property including the structure and/or appliances.}
(Claim 13) A computer system for determining an improvement to a home score for replacing or repairing an existing device based upon a device status determination, the computer system comprising one or more processors configured to:
{See previous citations, also [0010], [0057], and [0058].}
(Claim 18) A computer device for determining an improvement to a home score for replacing or repairing an existing device based upon a device status determination, the computer device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory memories;
{See previous citations, also [0010], [0057], and [0058].}
(Claims 1, 13, and 18) identifying, via one or more processors, an existing device;
{identifying existing device described in [0012]: For example, the controller may identify appliances that may be maintained differently to improve the health score, such as by replacing a filter or executing a full cleanup or ordering a replacement part or the like.
one or more processors described in [0014]: Controller 110 may include a computing device, such as computing device 200 of FIG. 2 that includes a processor communicatively coupled to a memory that includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause controller 110 to execute the operations described below.}
in response to the determination based upon the received signal, determining, via the one or more processors, a home score improvement that: (i) replacing the existing device would make for an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore, and/or (ii) repairing the existing device 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
{determining a home score improvement that: (i) replacing the existing device would make for an overall home score, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim given the use of and/or, described in [0012]: The controller may send this health score to a user. The user may be the property owner. The controller may send the health score to the user so that the user may improve the health score. In some examples, the controller may identify one or more recommendations as to how to improve the health score. For example, the controller may identify appliances that may be maintained differently to improve the health score, such as by replacing a filter or executing a full cleanup or ordering a replacement part or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, the controller may recommend how different uses of the property may alter a health score. For example, the controller may specify how changing a tenancy of a property and/or a type of commercialization of a property or the like may affect a health score.
in response to the determination based upon the received signal described in [0021]: For example, controller 110 may determine that a house has a status of being well insulated using data from sensors 140 of a thermostat, one or more HVAC appliances, and/or a security system that includes thermal images of an exterior of the house.
Examiner notes the interpretation of and/or above applies in subsequent recitations.}
displaying, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement on a display.
{displaying the home score improvement on a display described in [0053], [0054]: [0053] Controller 110 may output the health score to a user (310). Controller 110 may send the health score as an email or a text message or the like sent over network 160 to a device associated with the user. Controller 110 may send the health score to a user device associated with the user that sent the property identifier (that was received at 300). [0054] Outputting the health score may include outputting a recommended action.}
Lai doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Jordan, in a similar field of endeavor directed to responding to a broken circuit, teaches:
receive a signal from the identified existing device;
{receive a signal from the identified existing device described in col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 11: In addition to transmitting at least one instruction, the smart home controller 220 may also communicate (278) a notification to the electronic device associated with the individual 240 and/or the processing server 235 via a second and/or remote network (such as the remote network(s) 125 as described with respect to FIG. 1). The notification may include information describing the broken circuit, such as where the determined location of the broken circuit, an identity of one or more of the set of devices affected by the broken circuit, a description of any actions associated with the at least one instruction, and/or other information relating to the broken circuit. After receiving the notification, the electronic device may display any information contained therein. In some embodiments, this may include displaying a visual interface that depicts the information in on a display component.}
determine, based upon the received signal, that the existing device has a status of damaged, broken, expired, or low on electrical energy.
{See previous citation to col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 11.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lai to include the features of Jordan. Given that Lai is directed to managing a property via determination of property health scores, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Jordan, in order to facilitate leveraging a plurality of smart appliances or devices to mitigate risks associated with the breaking of a circuit {Col. 1, lines 54-60 of Jordan}.
Claims 2, 14, and 19
Lai further discloses: wherein: determining the home score improvement comprises determining the home score improvement that replacing the existing device 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
{determining the home score improvement comprises determining the home score improvement that replacing the existing device would make for the overall home score described in [0012]: The controller may send this health score to a user. The user may be the property owner. The controller may send the health score to the user so that the user may improve the health score. In some examples, the controller may identify one or more recommendations as to how to improve the health score. For example, the controller may identify appliances that may be maintained differently to improve the health score, such as by replacing a filter or executing a full cleanup or ordering a replacement part or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, the controller may recommend how different uses of the property may alter a health score. For example, the controller may specify how changing a tenancy of a property and/or a type of commercialization of a property or the like may affect a health score.}
the existing device comprises: a smart main water shutoff valve, a security camera, a smart outdoor lightbulb, a smoke detector, or a smart thermostat.
{smart thermostat described in [0020]: In some examples, controller 110 may gather data from a plurality of sensors 140 from properties 130 that are in the vicinity. Sensors 140 may include smart devices, such as devices that are connected to the Internet of Things (IoT). Sensors 140 may include appliances such a heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) appliances, thermostats, dishwashers, fridges, televisions, speakers, doorbells, security systems, or the like.}
Claims 3 and 15
Lai further discloses: wherein: determining the home score improvement comprises determining the home score improvement that repairing the existing device 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
{determining the home score improvement comprises determining the home score improvement that repairing the existing device would make for the overall home score described in [0012]: The controller may send this health score to a user. The user may be the property owner. The controller may send the health score to the user so that the user may improve the health score. In some examples, the controller may identify one or more recommendations as to how to improve the health score. For example, the controller may identify appliances that may be maintained differently to improve the health score, such as by replacing a filter or executing a full cleanup or ordering a replacement part or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, the controller may recommend how different uses of the property may alter a health score. For example, the controller may specify how changing a tenancy of a property and/or a type of commercialization of a property or the like may affect a health score.}
the existing device comprises: a smart main water shutoff valve, a security camera, an indoor sprinkler system, a smart washing machine, a smart dryer, or a smart refrigerator.
{smart refrigerator described in [0020]: In some examples, controller 110 may gather data from a plurality of sensors 140 from properties 130 that are in the vicinity. Sensors 140 may include smart devices, such as devices that are connected to the Internet of Things (IoT). Sensors 140 may include appliances such a heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) appliances, thermostats, dishwashers, fridges, televisions, speakers, doorbells, security systems, or the like.}
Claims 4 and 16
Lai further discloses: wherein the displaying further comprises displaying text explaining why replacing or repairing the existing device improves the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore.
{wherein the displaying further comprises displaying text explaining why replacing or repairing the existing device improves the overall home score described in [0053], [0054]: [0053] Controller 110 may output the health score to a user (310). Controller 110 may send the health score as an email or a text message or the like sent over network 160 to a device associated with the user. Controller 110 may send the health score to a user device associated with the user that sent the property identifier (that was received at 300). [0054] Outputting the health score may include outputting a recommended action. The recommended action may include an action that is determined by controller 110 to have a high likelihood to improve the health score of the property. For example, the recommended action may include replacing an appliance, or replacing a component (e.g., a filter) of an appliance, or cleaning or scheduling maintenance of an appliance, or the like.}
Claims 5 and 6
Lai further discloses: (Claims 5 and 6) wherein: determining the home score improvement comprises determining the home score improvement that replacing the existing device would make for the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore, wherein the home score improvement is a first home score improvement;
{determining the home score improvement comprises determining the home score improvement that replacing the existing device would make for the overall home score described in [0028]: In addition to or in lieu of determining a health score, the health score can be used to determine maintenance actions that should be performed. For example, the controller 110 can determine actions that would increase the health score of the home, such as, but not limited to, replacing/repairing a room, routine service on an HVAC system, recommended maintenance of appliances (e.g. based on manufacturer recommendations or crowdsourced data on maintenance actions regularly taken by other property owners), etc.}
the method further comprises determining, via the one or more processors, a second home score improvement that repairing the existing device would make for the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore;
{determining a second home score improvement that repairing the existing device would make for the overall home score described in [0045]: Using these components, controller 110 may determine one or more health scores of properties using data from a vicinity of the properties as discussed herein.}
the method further comprises determining, via the one or more processors, a recommendation to replace or repair the existing device based upon a comparison between the first home score improvement and the second home score improvement; and
{determining a recommendation to replace or repair the existing device based upon a comparison between the first home score improvement and the second home score improvement described in [0013], [0054]: [0013] In certain examples, the controller may further autonomously execute one or more actions to improve the health score. For example, the controller may order a replacement part of cause an appliance to execute a cleaning cycle or the like. Alternatively, or additionally, the controller may schedule an appointment with a maintenance person to come in and execute a tune up or fix of one or more aspects of a property. [0054] Outputting the health score may include outputting a recommended action. The recommended action may include an action that is determined by controller 110 to have a high likelihood to improve the health score of the property. For example, the recommended action may include replacing an appliance, or replacing a component (e.g., a filter) of an appliance, or cleaning or scheduling maintenance of an appliance, or the like.}
(Claim 5) the displaying further comprises displaying the recommendation on the display.
{displaying the recommendation on the display described in [0053], [0054]: [0053] Controller 110 may output the health score to a user (310). Controller 110 may send the health score as an email or a text message or the like sent over network 160 to a device associated with the user. Controller 110 may send the health score to a user device associated with the user that sent the property identifier (that was received at 300). [0054] Outputting the health score may include outputting a recommended action.}
(Claim 6) the displaying further comprises displaying: (i) a difference between the first home score improvement and the second home score improvement, and/or (ii) text explaining the recommendation.
{the displaying further comprises displaying text explaining the recommendation described in [0053], [0054]: [0053] Controller 110 may output the health score to a user (310). Controller 110 may send the health score as an email or a text message or the like sent over network 160 to a device associated with the user. Controller 110 may send the health score to a user device associated with the user that sent the property identifier (that was received at 300). [0054] Outputting the health score may include outputting a recommended action. The recommended action may include an action that is determined by controller 110 to have a high likelihood to improve the health score of the property. For example, the recommended action may include replacing an appliance, or replacing a component (e.g., a filter) of an appliance, or cleaning or scheduling maintenance of an appliance, or the like.}
Claim 10
Lai further discloses: further comprising receiving, via the one or more processors, imagery data from a mobile device and/or a smart home device; and
{receiving imagery data from a mobile device and/or a smart home device described in [0021]: Controller 110 may identify statuses of one or more properties in response to this data. For example, controller 110 may determine that a house has a status of being well insulated using data from sensors 140 of a thermostat, one or more HVAC appliances, and/or a security system that includes thermal images of an exterior of the house. For example, controller 110 may determine how much energy was utilized to achieve a delta between an internal temperature and an external temperature over time, or controller 110 may analyze how much heat is leaving a property using the thermal images.}
wherein the identifying comprises, identifying, via the one or more processors, the existing device from the imagery data.
{identifying the existing device from the imagery data also described in [0021].}
Claims 7-8, 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lai and Jordan, further in view of Takahashi (US 20160127144).
Claim 7
Lai further discloses: receiving, via the one or more processors, a selection to replace the existing device; and
{receiving a selection to replace the existing device described in [0028]: Alternatively, the controller 110 can provide a prompt to a user requesting confirmation that the controller 110 initiate the recommended action.}
in response to receiving the selection to replace the existing device, initiating, via the one or more processors, a purchase of a new device.
{initiating a purchase of a new device described in [0013]: In certain examples, the controller may further autonomously execute one or more actions to improve the health score. For example, the controller may order a replacement part of cause an appliance to execute a cleaning cycle or the like. Alternatively, or additionally, the controller may schedule an appointment with a maintenance person to come in and execute a tune up or fix of one or more aspects of a property.}.
The combination of Lai and Jordan doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Takahashi, in a similar field of endeavor directed to home appliance sensing, teaches:
receiving from a mobile device {receiving from a mobile device described in [0114]: The refrigerator 7 sets the first operational information and externally transmits the first operational information carrying the specified settings through the communication line 4 depending upon the current state of the operation control circuit 22. The personal computer 1 and the high-end mobile phone 6 display a specific first particular advice selected from the multiple entries of the first particular advice data stored in the server 5 that corresponds with the transmitted result of the first operational information. It is thus, possible to obtain the first particular advice suitably corresponding with the current state of the refrigerator 7 when food is not cooled and when food is not cooled well by simply operating the personal computer 1 or the high-end mobile phone 6. This improves user friendliness.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Lai and Jordan to include the features of Takahashi. Given that Lai is directed to managing a property via determination of property health scores, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Takahashi, in order to facilitate users promptly acting against appliance failures that require repair, thereby improving overall user friendliness {[0168] of Takahashi}.
Claim 8
The combination of Lai and Jordan doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Takahashi, in a similar field of endeavor directed to home appliance sensing, teaches:
receiving, via the one or more processors, from a mobile device, a selection to repair the existing device; in response to receiving the selection to repair the existing device, presenting, via the one or more processors, options for repairing the existing device; receiving, via the one or more processors, from the mobile device, a selection of an option to repair the existing device; and in response to receiving the selection of the option, initiating, via the one or more processors, a purchase of a repair service corresponding to the selection.
{receiving a selection to repair, presenting options, receiving a selection of an option, and initiating a purchase of a repair service described in [0153], [0209]: [0153] When the repair request key 74, the purchase support key 75, or the cancel key 76 is operated by the user, the personal computer 1 transmits information to the server 5 indicating that the repair request key 74, the purchase support key 75, or the cancel key 76 has been operated. The server 5 repeats steps S62 to S64 indicated in FIG. 24 until operation of either the repair request key 74, the purchase support key 75, or the cancel key 76 is detected. When detecting the operation of the cancel key 76 (step S64: YES) without detecting the operation of the repair request key 74 and the purchase support key 75 (step S62: NO and step S63: NO), the server 5 proceeds to step S53 (RET) of FIG. 23. When detecting the operation of the repair request key 74, on the other hand (step S62: YES), the server 5 proceeds to step S65 and executes the repair request. When the server 5 executes the repair request, instructions are given to the communication control circuit 23 of the refrigerator 7 to collect and acquire data detailing the failure encountered by the refrigerator 7. The elaborate failure data include error code, category, severity, and error content as illustrated for example in FIG. 20. When receiving instructions from the server 5, the communication control circuit 23 acquires data elaborating on the ongoing failures in the refrigerator 7. The communication control circuit 23 serves as an acquiring portion configured to acquire data pertaining to failures encountered by the refrigerator 7. [0209] The server 5 may be configured to display information 95 pertaining to repairing and replacing of consumables as a specific advice in the display region 24 as illustrated in FIG. 46. Information 95 includes information 951 indicating when the consumables of concern should be replaced and diagram 952 indicating where in the home appliance the consumable is located. The diagram 952 schematically depicts the targeted home appliance. For example, FIG. 46 illustrates a self-running cleaner which may be known as a robot cleaner. The server 5 displays, as a specific advice, information 951 indicating the names and the replacement timings of each consumable along with diagram 952 illustrating the location where each consumable is provided in the robot cleaner on the same screen. It is thus, possible for the user to know the replacing timing for the consumables at a glance. It is further possible for the user to easily grasp where the consumables requiring replacement is located in the home appliance. Such information is convenient when the user him/herself replaces the consumables. In this example, the OK key 79 is also displayed in the display region 24.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Lai and Jordan to include the features of Takahashi. Given that Lai is directed to managing a property via determination of property health scores, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Takahashi, in order to facilitate users promptly acting against appliance failures that require repair, thereby improving overall user friendliness {[0168] of Takahashi}.
Claims 11, 17, and 20
The combination of Lai and Jordan doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Takahashi, in a similar field of endeavor directed to home appliance sensing, teaches:
determining, via the one or more processors, a recommendation to replace or repair the existing device, wherein the recommendation includes a suggested date and/or range of dates to replace or repair the existing device.
{determining a recommendation to replace or repair the existing device, wherein the recommendation includes a suggested date and/or range of dates to replace or repair the existing device described in [0210] The server 5 may be configured to display, as a specific advice, information 96 pertaining to the consumables provided with the home appliance in the display region 24 as illustrated in FIG. 47. Information 96 may be described as information pertaining to degree of consumption of the consumables. In this case, information 96 is a graph in which period of service is taken along the lateral axis and percentage of consumption of the consumables are taken along the longitudinal axis. For example, the degree of consumption is indicated in multiple steps such as 25%, 50%, and 90%. Information 96 includes a graph 961 presenting estimated degree of consumption of consumables at different given time periods. Stated differently, information 96 indicates the appropriate timing for repairing the home appliance. Information 96 further includes information 962 indicating whether or not the consumable should be replaced at a given point in time or at a given degree of consumption, cost 963 required in replacing or repairing the consumable, and energy saving performance 964 when the consumable is used without being replaced. Cost 963 required in replacing or repairing the consumable is a conversion of degree of consumption of consumables into monetary cost.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Lai and Jordan to include the features of Takahashi. Given that Lai is directed to managing a property via determination of property health scores, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Takahashi, in order to facilitate users promptly acting against appliance failures that require repair, thereby improving overall user friendliness {[0168] of Takahashi}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lai and Jordan, further in view of Hayward (US 10497250).
Claim 9
The combination of Lai and Jordan doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Hayward, in a similar field of endeavor directed to detecting property damage, teaches:
wherein the one or more processors determine the home score improvement by using a home score improvement machine learning model trained using claims data.
{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 described in col. 7, line 60 col. 8, line 20: The present embodiments are directed to, inter alia, machine learning and/or training a model using historical home/property insurance claim data to discover risk levels and price home/real property insurance accordingly. Systems and methods may include natural language processing of free-form notes/text, or free-form speech/audio, recorded by call center and/or claim adjustor, photos, and/or other evidence. The free-form text and/or free-form speech may also be received from a customer who is inputting the text or speech into a mobile device app or into a smart home controller, and/or into a chat bot or robo-advisor. ¶ Other inputs to a machine learning/training model may be harvested from historical claims may, and may include make, model, year of appliances in the house (e.g., water heater, toilet, dishwasher, etc.), type of home, materials used in building the home, claim paid or not paid, liability (e.g., types of injuries, where treated, how treated, etc.), disbursements related to claim such as hotel costs and other payouts, etc. Additional inputs to the machine learning/training model may include home telematics data received from a smart home controller, such as how long and when are the doors unlocked, how often is the security system armed, how long is the stove on and during which times of the day, etc.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Lai and Jordan to include the features of Hayward. Given that Lai is directed to managing a property via determination of property health scores, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Hayward, in order to facilitate loss mitigation and prevention at a property, in addition to automating the insurance claims handling process {col. 2, lines 10-15 of Hayward}.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered. Examiner’s response follows, with applicant’s headings used for consistency.
Interview Summary; 35 U.S.C. § 102, 103 Rejections; Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant is thanked for their interview summary and present claim amendments. In view of these amendments, which modified the scope of the claim beyond merely incorporating a dependent claim, examiner has identified and applied new art. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments concerning the previously applied references are moot. Instead of restating here, examiner directs applicant’s attention to the claim analysis above.
In view of applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer, the previous Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, applicant offers, after restating the present claim amendments (brackets indicate claim language omitted for brevity):
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Amended claim 1 requires receiving an actual signal from a physical device, determining a device status based upon that signal, and then-in direct response to that determination-determining a home score improvement. This sequence does not merely link the judicial exception to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs information obtained from a signal received from a physical smart home device (the device status of damaged, broken, expired, or low on electrical energy) to trigger the determination of a home score improvement. This is not merely automating an abstract idea on a generic computer, but rather using real-world device data to take a specific responsive action within a home monitoring system.
Furthermore, the amended claim 1 improves the functioning of a home monitoring system by creating a feedback loop between physical smart home devices and a home score calculation system. Rather than requiring user input to assess device conditions, amended claim 1 recites a system that automatically receives signals from devices, processes those signals to determine device status, and responsively calculates home score improvements. This represents a specific technological improvement to how home monitoring systems operate, as it enables proactive, automated assessment of when devices should be repaired or replaced based upon real-time device data. Such integration of device-generated signals into a responsive scoring and recommendation system constitutes a practical application that goes beyond merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Applicant respectfully submits that this demonstrates improved technical functioning at Step 2A, Prong 2. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(1).
Applicant further respectfully submits that this improved technical functioning demonstrates at Step 2B as well. See M.P.E.P. §2106.05(a). Moreover, further regarding Step 2B, Applicant respectfully submits that at least the following features of claim 1 were not well-understood, routine or conventional in the relevant field:
[…]
In this regard, Applicant notes that the proper inquiry is whether "certain claim elements recite well understood, routine, conventional activities in the relevantfield." See M.P.E.P. § 2106.07(a); emphasis added.
At least for the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is subject matter eligible. Applicability of the foregoing to independent claims 13 and 18 is believed to be readily apparent and is not further discussed here. The remaining claims are dependent claims. Applicant, therefore, at least for the reasons discussed above, respectfully requests withdrawal of all rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
While well taken, examiner remains unpersuaded. Applicant has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, when offering remarks such as: “This represents a specific technological improvement to how home monitoring systems operate, as it enables proactive, automated assessment of when devices should be repaired or replaced based upon real-time device data.” Here, examiner identified the following steps as part of the abstract idea (claim 1 being representative):
identify an existing device;
determining, based upon the received signal, that the existing device has a status of damaged, broken, expired, or low on electrical energy;
in response to the determination based upon the received signal, determine a home score improvement that: (i) replacing the existing device would make for an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore, and/or (ii) repairing the existing device 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
display the home score improvement.
The additional elements (e.g., computer-implemented; one or more processors; receiving, via the one or more processors, a signal from the identified existing device; display), which are considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, serve to merely facilitate the tasks of said abstract idea and/or function as insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that this generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. Likewise, MPEP 2106.05(g), (d) indicate that mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity that’s recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional. This interpretation holds whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination, where the combination of elements is nothing more than a generic computing system that facilitates data transmission and receipt. Accordingly, the combination of elements does not represent an improvement to technology, as applicant argues.
For these reasons, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 USC 101.
(As noted above, in view of applicant’s amendments, which modified the scope of the claim beyond merely incorporating a dependent claim, examiner has identified and applied new art. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments concerning the previously applied references are moot.)
In summary, examiner has responded to all of applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150287310, which teaches: Systems and methods for initiating a drill by receiving an indication to start a drill. The indication to start the drill is received via a first network interface having a first network interface type. The drill is propagated to other devices in a network via a second network interface having a second network interface type.
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 JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629