DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 3, 2026, has been entered.
In response, the Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 20. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
1) “Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 does not fall within either of these groupings…specific combination of steps involves a particular technical process…a human mind cannot receive imagery data from smart device…these steps are not mere mental observations or evaluations…
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Applicant merely asserts that the claims do not recite limitations that fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas without providing any substantive rational for why. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the Examiner maintains that the claims recite limitations that fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas is not persuasive. The examiner carefully identified which steps were deemed part of the mental process. These steps did not include presenting the home score via a display and/or chatbot. The examiner is persuaded that the human is not capable of receiving imagery data from a smart device. However, this step is insignificant pre-solution activity. The examiner maintains that a human is capable of receiving structure information for the home. However, even if it were demonstrated that a human is not capable of doing so, this is again insignificant pre-solution activity. However, a human is capable of performing the “presenting…receiving…identifying…determining…” steps mentally and/or with pen and paper. Recitation of “via the one or more processors” does not change this determination, as this amounts merely to an instruction to perform the step using a general-purpose computer.
Applicant further argues that
1) “Applicant respectfully submits that the ordered combination of elements integrates any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Amended claim
1 recites a specific technical process that improves the accuracy and reliability of the system's upgrade and/or service identification… a user entering and/or confirming structural information "advantageously improves accuracy of the system in determining home score(s), improvements in home scores, recommendations to purchase, etc."
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
An improvement to the accuracy of the home score improvement (e.g., because more information is involved in the determination of the home score improvement) is an improvement to the abstract idea itself. There is no improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, no improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and the claims do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. The confirmation step is part of the abstract idea, and is only required to be performed via the processor(s). Even if the claims required a user interface to present the option and/or receive the confirmation (which they do not), such a requirement would serve merely to limit the abstract idea to computing environments.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1, 8 ,and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered, but is not persuasive. Applicant asserts that none of the cited references, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests the specific combination of steps recited in amended claim 1, and more specifically argues Bentley does not disclose or suggest receiving structure information from a database and then presenting that structure information to a user for confirmation before using the confirmed structure information together with imagery data to identify an upgrade and/or service. Applicant further argues Bently profile updating process merely involves a user manually editing or entering information into sub-fields, which is “fundamentally different from the claimed process of: (a) receiving structure information from a database, (b) presenting to a user an option to confirm that structure information, (c) receiving confirmation that the structure information is correct”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bentley explains that the system “allows users of system 2400 to access information stored in the databases via custom user interfaces” ([0050]) and that the system facilitates “tracking and understanding elements of a property's states (current conditions) or traits (inherent elements of a property), the property owner and stakeholders can address deficient conditions” ([0058]). Bentley further discloses that the “system tracks property and system data from a multitude of sources, provides the user or an agent with raw and structured access to this data, provides the user or an agent with analytics and reporting at all levels of data collection, and provides insights and prompts to track additional updates, activities or user behaviors…a user creates a profile on the system with user information and information about one or more properties. Each of these properties will be associated with a property profile that stores information about the property. A property profile may include, but is not limited to, information about the property's traits, states, or items in or on the property and/or parts associated with such items…may store this user profile in, for example, user database 2410. Profile information can also be entered into the system by the user, the property owner, a partner, a stakeholder, or combinations thereof, that describes information about, for example, the property and the user.” ([0059]-[0062]). As such the home profile information, which includes structure information for the home (e.g., traits), is stored in a database. This information may be received from a variety of sources/parties. Any subsequent retrieval of this information (e.g., to display to the home owner via a GUI) therefore involves receiving this information from the database via the one or more processors.
Bentley further discloses that a user can be periodically requested to update the profile ([0068], [0113]-[0115], [0138]) to ensure the home structure information is up-to date ([0060], [0114], [0005], [0138]), and that when doing so, the GUI can present current property information subfields and current data (which include structural data, such as number of bathrooms, floors, health and safety information, security appliances, heating and cooling systems, water and plumbing systems, etc.) to be displayed to the user ([0071]-[0072]). The user can choose to edit the current information if they choose. Upon determining the information is all correct/updated, the click an “update and close button” ([0072]). This process amounts to presenting the user with an option to confirm the structure information and receiving confirmation that the structure information is correct. Examiner notes that Bentley also suggests that the system can request the user to update the profile via survey or direct feedback instead of entering it directly as well, where responses are mapped to existing profile fields ([0072]-[0074]).
As discussed above, the information in the profile can include a variety of “structure information”, including information about the homes various systems. (e.g., HVAC location?; HVAC size?; last time HVAC changed?; last time HVAC ducts cleaned?; type of heating systems?; type of electrical systems?; auto water shut off information? pool information?; safety check information?; safety check information—hoses for washing machine?; safety check information—dryer line cleaning?; safety check information?). This information is “used as input to any of the models described herein” ([0075]). Furthermore, the various recommendations/suggestions/alerts are also based on this data (Figs 7 & 8 & [0066]-[0067] “The list of recommendations 214 may include recommendations such as, but not limited to, non-time-sensitive improvements, safety recommendations, value recommendations, qualitative recommendations, quantitative recommendations, and any combination thereof. These recommendations may be based on data reported by the user (self-reported data), information reported by the system, meta-data, user-defined preferences and categories, or geographical or property-specific classifications, or any combination thereof. For example, a user answering affirmatively for the presence of a safety item such as a generator would trigger one set of recommendations versus a user answering in the negative, which would trigger a different set of recommendations. That is, answering in the affirmative may prompt the systems and methods of the present invention to provide maintenance and/or upgrade suggestions for the specific generator, whereas answering in the negative may prompt the systems and methods of the present invention to recommend installation of a generator as an upgrade item. In an embodiment, user-defined preferences are set up in the member profile page, an example of which is depicted in FIG. 11” – recommendations to increase safety and reduce risk (i.e. ,prevent potential loss from occurring”) for the potential loss location (e.g., the home, a specific appliance) based on the self-reported data which may be pictures as described elsewhere and may be to install a generator if no generator is detected , [0091]-[0092] “ photos of items associated with the property… information about items and appliances (e.g., such as brand name, machine type, serial numbers or model numbers) may be automatically extracted from an uploaded photo” – appliances associated with the home may be determined from the photos, [0175] “recommendations may include only time-sensitive or safety related recommendations that need to be addressed to maintain a certain level of the home fitness index or that add more value. For example, the PVB recommendations may include a time sensitive, heating and cooling recommendation to service an air conditioning unit that is malfunctioning or a safety-related” ) As such, Bently does disclose using the confirmed structure information together with imagery data (as already taught in the previous rejection) to identify an upgrade and/or service to the home.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 4, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim(s) 9-16 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 17-20 is/are drawn to computer devices (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 9 and 17) recites/describes the following steps;
receiving…imagery data…
receiving…structure information for the home
presenting…to a user, an option to confirm the structure information
receiving…confirmation that the structure information is correct
identifying…an based upon: (i) the structure information and (ii) the received imagery data, an upgrade and/or service to a home;
determining…and based at least in part upon the received imagery data, a home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore;
presenting…the home score improvement along with an indication of the upgrade and/or service
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth identifying an upgrade and/or service to a home based at least in part on received imagery data (e.g., a picture) and confirmed home structure information, determining (based at least in part on the received imagery data - e.g., a picture) a home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service 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 presenting this information, which amounts to a fundamental economic principle or practice (insurance); and/or a commercial or legal interactions (an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally and/or alternatively, the above-recited steps of “receiving…structure information for the home”, “presenting…”, “receiving…” identifying…” and “determining…”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing these steps/functions (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 9 and 17 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“computer-implemented… via one or more processors, from a database… via the one or more processors… via the one or more processors… via the one or more processors… via the one or more processors” (claim 1)
“a computer system…the system comprising one or more processors configured to…from a database” (claim 9)
“a computer device…the computer device comprising; one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory memories; 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…from a datbase” (claim 17)
“from a smart device” (claims 1, 9, and 17)
“via a display and/or chatbot” (claims 1, 9, and 17)
“on a display” (claims 8 and 16)
“via the one or more processors” (claims 4-7)
“wherein the one or more processors are further configured to” (claims 12-16)
“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” (claim 20)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “computer-implemented… via one or more processors, from a database… via the one or more processors… via the one or more processors… via the one or more processors… via the one or more processors” (claim 1) or “a computer system…the system comprising one or more processors configured to…from a database” (claim 9) or “a computer device…the computer device comprising; one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory memories; 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…from a database” (claim 17) and/or “on a display” (claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17) and/or “via the one or more processors” (claims 4-7) and/or “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to” (claims 12-16) and/or “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” (claim 20) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own published disclosure explains that these elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [0585]-[0587] “as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor… the hardware modules comprise a general-purpose processor configured using software, the general-purpose processor may be configured as respective different hardware modules at different times”). Examiner notes that use of a smart device (e.g., smart phone) to obtain image data and/or receiving image data from this device is merely use of a conventional device in its ordinary capacity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “from a smart device” (claims 1, 9, and 17) and/or “via a display and/or chatbot” (claims 1, 9, and 17) or “on a display” (claims 8 and 16) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers (e.g., a smart device) over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “receiving…imagery data from a smart device” (claims 1, 9, and 17) and “receiving…from a database, structure information for the home” (claims 1, 9, and 17) and “presenting…the home score improvement along with an indication of the upgrade and/or service via a display and/or chatbot” (claims 1, 9, and 17), even if treated as an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity and post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all implementations of the abstract idea require such data, and because such data gathering steps solution-outputting/transmission steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s published specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process for determining/displaying a home score improvement because doing so can help home-owners to have a better understanding of a holistic risk profile associated with their home, because such scores can be used to provide recommendations to home-owners they may find helpful, and because such scores can be used for underwriting insurance (see, for example, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] & [0092]) of Applicant’s published disclosure). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for determining a home improvement score).
Dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 2 recites “the upgrade and/or service comprising the service to the home; and wherein the service comprises: (i) pruning a tree branch, and/or (ii) trimming brushes”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 2. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other identified dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “computer-implemented… via one or more processors, from a database… via the one or more processors… via the one or more processors… via the one or more processors… via the one or more processors” (claim 1) or “a computer system…the system comprising one or more processors configured to…from a database” (claim 9) or “a computer device…the computer device comprising; one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory memories; 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…from a database” (claim 17) and/or “on a display” (claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17) and/or “via the one or more processors” (claims 4-7) and/or “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to” (claims 12-16) and/or “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” (claim 20) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “from a smart device” (claims 1, 9, and 17) and/or “via a display and/or chatbot” (claims 1, 9, and 17) or “on a display” (claims 8 and 16) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “receiving…imagery data from a smart device” (claims 1, 9, and 17) and “receiving…from a database, structure information for the home” (claims 1, 9, and 17) and “presenting…the home score improvement along with an indication of the upgrade and/or service via a display and/or chatbot” (claims 1, 9, and 17), even if treated as an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution and post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of home risk analysis. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
v Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley III et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2023/0035517, February 2, 2023 - hereinafter "Bentley”) in view of Sinha et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0067851, March 3, 2022 - hereinafter "Sinha”)
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, Bentley teaches a computer-implemented method for determining an improvement to a home score for an upgrade and/or service for a home; a computer system for determining an improvement to a home score for an upgrade and/or service for a home, the system comprising one or more processors; and a computer device for determining an improvement to a home score for an upgrade and/or service for a home, the computer device comprising ;
one or more processors; (claim 17) and ([0039] & [0044]-[0045] & [0055])
one or more non-transitory memories; 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: (claim 17) ([0044]-[0045])
receiving, via one or more processors, imagery data from a smart device ([0071] “upgrade profile page 400 may include, but is not limited to, property pictures 404”, [0091]-[0092] “Photos may include any type of photo including, but not limited to, photos of the property, photos of items associated with the property, and photos to assist with maintenance of the property. The photos screen allows the user to upload new photos or delete existing photos. Upon completion, a user may select save to execute step 1431 of process 1400, which saves the photos to a database such as information database 24… information about items and appliances (e.g., such as brand name, machine type, serial numbers or model numbers) may be automatically extracted from an uploaded photo” – items associated with the property or even more generally “the property” are examples of “potential loss location within the home and/or proximate the home” , [0097] “the user may upload media (e.g., photos, videos, files, links, and the like) to the journal from a mobile device” & [0042] “smart phone” – a user’s smart phone reads on the claimed “first smart device” as a smart phone is a smart device. This is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure, which suggests a smart device may actually be a computing device associated with the property ([0069]), and because no explicit definition for “smart device” is given. The smart phone is one of a plurality of smart devices as the home may have a smart speaker as well ([0101] & [0112])
receiving, via the one or more processors, from a database, structure information for the home (Bentley explains that the system “allows users of system 2400 to access information stored in the databases via custom user interfaces” ([0050]) and that the system facilitates “tracking and understanding elements of a property's states (current conditions) or traits (inherent elements of a property), the property owner and stakeholders can address deficient conditions” ([0058]). Bentley further discloses that the “system tracks property and system data from a multitude of sources, provides the user or an agent with raw and structured access to this data, provides the user or an agent with analytics and reporting at all levels of data collection, and provides insights and prompts to track additional updates, activities or user behaviors…a user creates a profile on the system with user information and information about one or more properties. Each of these properties will be associated with a property profile that stores information about the property. A property profile may include, but is not limited to, information about the property's traits, states, or items in or on the property and/or parts associated with such items…may store this user profile in, for example, user database 2410. Profile information can also be entered into the system by the user, the property owner, a partner, a stakeholder, or combinations thereof, that describes information about, for example, the property and the user.” ([0059]-[0062]). As such the home profile information, which includes structure information for the home (e.g., traits), is stored in a database. This information may be received from a variety of sources/parties. Any subsequent retrieval of this information (e.g., to display to the home owner via a GUI – such as that in Fig 4) therefore involves receiving this information from the database via the one or more processors)
presenting, via the one or more processors, to a user, an option to confirm the structure information; receiving, via the one or more processors, confirmation that the structure information is correct (Bentley further discloses that a user can be periodically requested to update the profile ([0068], [0113]-[0115], [0138]) to ensure the home structure information is up-to date ([0060], [0114], [0005], [0138]), and that when doing so, the GUI can present current property information subfields and current data (which include structural data, such as number of bathrooms, floors, health and safety information, security appliances, heating and cooling systems, water and plumbing systems, etc.) to be displayed to the user ([0071]-[0072]). The user can edit the current information if they so choose. Upon determining the information is all correct/updated, the click an “update and close button” ([0072]). This process amounts to presenting the user with an option to confirm the structure information and receiving confirmation that the structure information is correct. Examiner notes that Bentley also suggests that the system can request the user to update the profile via survey or direct feedback instead of entering it directly as well, where responses are mapped to existing profile fields ([0072]-[0074]).
identifying, via the one or more processors and based upon: (i) the structure information and (ii) the received imagery data, an upgrade and/or service to a home (Figs 7 & 8 & [0066]-[0067] “The list of recommendations 214 may include recommendations such as, but not limited to, non-time-sensitive improvements, safety recommendations, value recommendations, qualitative recommendations, quantitative recommendations, and any combination thereof. These recommendations may be based on data reported by the user (self-reported data), information reported by the system, meta-data, user-defined preferences and categories, or geographical or property-specific classifications, or any combination thereof. For example, a user answering affirmatively for the presence of a safety item such as a generator would trigger one set of recommendations versus a user answering in the negative, which would trigger a different set of recommendations. That is, answering in the affirmative may prompt the systems and methods of the present invention to provide maintenance and/or upgrade suggestions for the specific generator, whereas answering in the negative may prompt the systems and methods of the present invention to recommend installation of a generator as an upgrade item. In an embodiment, user-defined preferences are set up in the member profile page, an example of which is depicted in FIG. 11” – recommendations to increase safety and reduce risk (i.e. ,prevent potential loss from occurring”) for the potential loss location (e.g., the home, a specific appliance) based on the self-reported data which may be info from the home profile including pictures as described elsewhere and may be to install a generator if no generator is detected , [0091]-[0092] “ photos of items associated with the property… information about items and appliances (e.g., such as brand name, machine type, serial numbers or model numbers) may be automatically extracted from an uploaded photo” – appliances associated with the home may be determined from the photos, [0175] “recommendations may include only time-sensitive or safety related recommendations that need to be addressed to maintain a certain level of the home fitness index or that add more value. For example, the PVB recommendations may include a time sensitive, heating and cooling recommendation to service an air conditioning unit that is malfunctioning or a safety-related”)
determining, via the one or more processors and based at least in part upon the received imagery data, that the upgrade and/or service would increase an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore; and ([0174]-[0176] & Figs 7 & 8, , [0091]-[0092] “ photos of items associated with the property… information about items and appliances (e.g., such as brand name, machine type, serial numbers or model numbers) may be automatically extracted from an uploaded photo”)
displaying, via the one or more processors, an indication of the upgrade and/or service on a display (Figs 7 & 8 & [0066]-[0067] & [0135], [0147] & [0174]-[0176])
Bentley does not appear to disclose,
determining, via the one or more processors, a home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service 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
displaying the home score improvement
However, Sinha discloses
determining, via the one or more processors, a home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service 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 (Fig 15 tags 1514 & 1516 & [0043] & [0048] & [0053] & [0377]-[0378])
displaying the home score improvement (Fig 15 tags 1514 & 1516 & [0043] & [0048] & [0053] & [0377]-[0378])
Sinha suggests it is advantageous to include determining, via the one or more processors, a home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service 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 displaying the home score improvement, because doing so can help a person to better understand the impact the recommended upgrade and/or service will have on an associated score which may increase user convenience and may help them to determine whether to accept or follow-through on a recommended upgrade/service (Fig 15 tags 1514 & 1516 & [0043] & [0048] & [0053] & [0377]-[0378]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and device of Bentley to include determining, via the one or more processors, a home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service 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 displaying the home score improvement, as taught by Sinha, because doing so can help a person to better understand the impact the recommended upgrade and/or service will have on an associated score which may increase user convenience and may help them to determine whether to accept or follow-through on a recommended upgrade/service 2Applicant: Jeffrey L. NanusApplication No.: 141593,177 Docket No.: 1377-9Preliminary Amendment.
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Bentley and Sinha teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 9. Bentley does not appear to disclose,
wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the home automation subscore; and
wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises upgrading and/or adding to an electrical system in a garage to enable and/or improve electric vehicle charging
However, Sinha discloses
wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the home automation subscore; and ([0240] & Fig 15)
wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises upgrading and/or adding to an electrical system in a garage to enable and/or improve electric vehicle charging ([0240])
Sinha suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the home automation subscore; and wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises upgrading and/or adding to an electrical system in a garage to enable and/or improve electric vehicle charging, because people may be interested in this type of building improvement and it therefore may increase user satisfaction/convenience ([0240] & Fig 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and device of Bentley to include wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the home automation subscore; and wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises upgrading and/or adding to an electrical system in a garage to enable and/or improve electric vehicle charging, as taught by Sinha, because people may be interested in this type of building improvement and it therefore may increase user satisfaction/convenience 2Applicant: Jeffrey L. NanusApplication No.: 141593,177 Docket No.: 1377-9Preliminary Amendment.
Furthermore, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the home service/upgrade of Sinha for one of the home services/upgrades of Bentley. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
v Claims 2, 4, 10, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley III in view of Sinha, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,755,357, August 25, 2020 - hereinafter "Davis”)
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, Bentley and Sinha teach the method of claim 1, the system of claim 9, and the device of claim 17. Although Bently does suggest a recommendation may be associated with trees ([0138]), Bentley does not appear to disclose,
the upgrade and/or service comprising the service to the home; and wherein the service comprises: (i) pruning a tree branch, and/or (ii) trimming brushes;
However, Davis discloses
the upgrade and/or service comprising the service to the home; and wherein the service comprises: (i) pruning a tree branch, and/or (ii) trimming brushes (11:15-67 & 12:1-47 & 13:55-67)
Davis suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the upgrade and/or service comprising the service to the home; and wherein the service comprises: (i) pruning a tree branch, and/or (ii) trimming brushes, because such services may increase the safety and/or decrease expense risk for a home (11:15-67 & 12:1-47 & 13:55-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and device of Bentley to include wherein the upgrade and/or service comprising the service to the home; and wherein the service comprises: (i) pruning a tree branch, and/or (ii) trimming brushes, as taught by Davis, because such services may increase the safety and/or decrease expense risk for a home.
Furthermore, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the home service/upgrade of Davis for one of the home services/upgrades of Bentley in view of Sinha. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
With respect to claims 4, 12, and 20, Bentley teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 9, and the device of claim 17;
wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the home safety subscore; and ([0004]-[0006] & [0058] & [0066]-[0068])
Examiner notes Sinha also discloses this limitations
Although Bently does suggest a recommendation may be associated with trees ([0138]), Bentley does not appear to disclose,
wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises pruning a tree branch, trimming brushes, adding a structural support beam, or replacing a roof
However, Davis discloses
wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises pruning a tree branch, trimming brushes, adding a structural support beam, or replacing a roof (11:15-67 & 12:1-47 & 13:55-67 – tree branch pruning/trimming)
Davis suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises pruning a tree branch, trimming brushes, adding a structural support beam, or replacing a roof, because such services may increase the safety and/or decrease expense risk for a home (11:15-67 & 12:1-47 & 13:55-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and device of Bentley in view of Sinha to include wherein the upgrade and/or service comprising the service to the home; and wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises pruning a tree branch, trimming brushes, adding a structural support beam, or replacing a roof, as taught by Davis, because such services may increase the safety and/or decrease expense risk for a home.
Furthermore, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the home service/upgrade of Davis for one of the home services/upgrades of Bentley in view of Sinha. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
v Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley III in view of Sinha, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Marotta et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0013222 January 13, 2022 - hereinafter "Marotta”)
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Bentley teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 9.
wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the fire protection subscore; and ([0071] & [0174])
Bentley does not appear to disclose,
wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises adding fire resistant insulation
However, Marotta discloses
wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises adding fire resistant insulation ([0075])
Marotta suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises adding fire resistant insulation, because such services may increase the value and/or decrease expense/insurance risk for a home ([0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and device of Bentley in view of Singh to include wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises adding fire resistant insulation, as taught by Marotta, because such services may increase the value and/or decrease expense/insurance risk for a home.
Furthermore, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the home service/upgrade of Marotta for one of the home services/upgrades of Bentley in view of Sinha. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
v Claims 3, 8, 11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley III in view of Sinha, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Conway et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0322705 November 9, 2017 - hereinafter "Conway”)
With respect to claims 3, 11, and 19, Bentley and Sinha teach the method of claim 1, the system of claim 9, and the device of claim 17. Bentley does not appear to disclose,
the upgrade and/or service comprising the upgrade to the home; and wherein the upgrade comprises: (i) adding a structural support beam, and/or (ii) replacing a roof
However, Conway discloses
the upgrade and/or service comprising the upgrade to the home; and wherein the upgrade comprises: (i) adding a structural support beam, and/or (ii) replacing a roof ([0004] & [0059] & [0064] & [0103]))
Conway suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the upgrade and/or service comprising the upgrade to the home; and wherein the upgrade comprises: (i) adding a structural support beam, and/or (ii) replacing a roof, because such services may increase the value and/or decrease expense/insurance risk for a home ([0004] & [0059] & [0064] & [0103]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and device of Bentley to include the upgrade and/or service comprising the upgrade to the home; and wherein the upgrade comprises: (i) adding a structural support beam, and/or (ii) replacing a roof, as taught by Conway, because such services may increase the value and/or decrease expense/insurance risk for a home.
Furthermore, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the home service/upgrade of Conway for one of the home services/upgrades of Bentley in view of Sinha. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Bentley and Sinha teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 9. Bentley does not appear to disclose,
further comprising categorizing the upgrade and/or service into a category, wherein the category comprises an urgent category, a precaution category, or a watch category; and wherein the displaying further comprises displaying an indication of the category on the display
However, Conway discloses
further comprising categorizing the upgrade and/or service into a category, wherein the category comprises an urgent category, a precaution category, or a watch category; and wherein the displaying further comprises displaying an indication of the category on the display ([0059] & [0069] & [0089] urgency categorization/priority level assigned and displayed)
Conway suggests it is advantageous to include categorizing the upgrade and/or service into a category, wherein the category comprises an urgent category, a precaution category, or a watch category; and wherein the displaying further comprises displaying an indication of the category on the display, because doing so may help a user to determine how necessary a service/upgrade may be ([0059] & [0069] & [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and device of Bentley in view of Singh to categorizing the upgrade and/or service into a category, wherein the category comprises an urgent category, a precaution category, or a watch category; and wherein the displaying further comprises displaying an indication of the category on the display, as taught by Conway, because doing so may help a user to determine how necessary a service/upgrade may be.
v Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley III in view of Sinha, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Shlovskii et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2012/0216123 August 23, 2012 - hereinafter "Shlovskii”)
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Bentley teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 9. Bentley does not appear to disclose,
wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the sustainability subscore; and
wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises adding insulation, and/or replacing current insulation with new insulation, wherein the new insulation has a higher R-value than the current insulation
However, Shlovskii discloses
wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the sustainability subscore; and (Fig 14 & [0066] & [0070] & [0089] & [0100])
wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises adding insulation, and/or replacing current insulation with new insulation, wherein the new insulation has a higher R-value than the current insulation (Fig 14 & [0066] & [0070] & [0089] & [0100])
Shlovskii suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the sustainability subscore; and wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises adding insulation, and/or replacing current insulation with new insulation, wherein the new insulation has a higher R-value than the current insulation, because people may be interested in how energy efficient or sustainable their residence is and because such services may increase the value and/or decrease expense or environmental impact for a home (Fig 14 & [0066] & [0070] & [0089] & [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and device of Bentley in view of Singh to include wherein the determining comprises determining, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement that the upgrade and/or service would make for the sustainability subscore; and wherein the upgrade and/or service comprises adding insulation, and/or replacing current insulation with new insulation, wherein the new insulation has a higher R-value than the current insulation, as taught by Shlovskii, because people may be interested in how energy efficient or sustainable their residence is and because such services may increase the value and/or decrease expense or environmental impact for a home.
Furthermore, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the home service/upgrade of Shlovskii for one of the home services/upgrades of Bentley in view of Sinha. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Luciani et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0245290, August 4, 2022) teaches analyzing pictures of a person’s home and analyzing the images to assess risks associated with the home to provide recommendations to the user about how to reduce their risk.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights