CTFR 18/631,375 CTFR 91205 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status Claims 1-3, and 5-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/3/2025, 1/6/2026, and 4/3/2026 were filed with the accompanying fee. As such, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Objections Drawings The drawings are objected to, because labels external to objects and boxes, are shown without leader line. The prior corrections have been entered; but there are other figures with the same error. Please replace underline with a leader pointing at the boxes generally. Also consider using a box or a bracket to show inclusion. 37 CFR 1.84(q). 06-22-03 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-3, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. More particularly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more. More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally, MPEP § 2106 ; Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. , 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda. Under MPEP § 2106, Step 1, the claimed invention, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process (i.e., a method ), machine (e.g., apparatus, device, system, etc.), article of manufacture (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) or composition of matter, and as such, is patent eligible. Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-3, and 5-20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards recommending actions (e.g., implementing home safety/improvement devices) to reduce insurance risk (e.g., increase a correlative score). This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans (e.g., insurance agents/adjusters, energy companies, etc.) manually and via generic computing. That is to say, insurance agents/adjusters have long obtained information about a home (e.g., visually in-person, telephonically, or via written communication from the home owner/tenant) and then recommended an action, such as adding devices to the home, so as to reduce an insurance premium, etc. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation . Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—machine vision/computer vision, a computer device, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory memories, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology . A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice , 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. , 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to autonomously do what’s been previously done, albeit less efficiently or slower. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp. , 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)). Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice , merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction , 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc ., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea). Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data , electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document , electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network , e.g. , using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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: a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-fti This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2024/0046366 to Yager et al, in view of US 2015/0109104 to Fadell et al . With respect to Claims 1, 15, and 18, Yager teaches a computer system/device for using machine vision and/or computer vision to recommend a suggestion to improve a home score, the system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory memories (FIG. 1), and a computer-implemented method (FIGS. 2-5) for using machine vision and/or computer vision ([0042]) to recommend a suggestion to improve a home score ([0088];[0093]), comprising: determining, via one or more processors, for a home, an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore: receiving, via one or more processors, imagery data ([0042];[0112]); determining, via the one or more processors, a suggestion based upon the imagery data ([0034];[0093]) including applying machine vision and/or computer vision to the imagery data by: determining, via the one or more processors, an absence of a particular type of device; and determining, via the one or more processors, the new device based upon the determined absence of the particular type of device; ([0098];[0052];[0055]) determining, via the one or more processors, a home score improvement that adding the new device to a home would make for an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore ([0040];[0052];[0054];[0108], see the determination of scores throughout); and presenting, via the one or more processors, the home score improvement ([0128]). Yager fails to expressly teach but Fadell teaches determining a new device based upon the imagery data including applying machine vision . . . based upon the determined absence of the particular type of device” ([0085];”buying and installing extra smart nightlights 170”];[0105];[0121-23], “tips” for improving security;[0162], “missing property alerts”; [0312- 17], “suggestions . . . to buy a backup power generator, etc.”;[0440];[0456]) and determination of a home score improvement ([0118], “achieving a certain "security score" by properly equipping their home with security devices and services and properly using and maintaining those devices”; [0122]). Fadell discusses throughout the advantageous such as for “a larger intelligence that cane be made available.” [0120] As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yager to include this additional functionality and structure so as to provide a larger intelligence system. With respect to Claims 2, 16, and 19, Yager teaches determining the new device based further upon structure information ([0068];[0110]). With respect to Claims 3, 17, and 20, Yager teaches determining an existing device (roof) based upon the imagery data, and determining the new device based further upon the existing device ([0112]). With respect to Claim 5, Yager teaches identifying, via the one or more processors, potential placement locations of the new device ([0112]); and determining, via the one or more processors, respective improvements that placing the new device in each of the potential placement locations would make for the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore ([0112]); and wherein the presenting includes displaying, via the one or more processors, on the display, respective indications of the respective improvements that placing the new device in each of the potential placement locations would make ([0112];[0128]). With respect to Claim 6, Yager teaches receiving, via the one or more processors, a selection of the new device from a mobile device ([0028];[0106-07]); and in response to receiving the selection, initiating, via the one or more processors, a purchase of the new device ([0028];[0106-07]). With respect to Claim 7, Yager teaches wherein the displaying further comprises presenting text explaining why the new device improves the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore ([0089]). With respect to Claim 8, Yager teaches wherein the determination of the home score improvement is based upon an existing number of devices already in the home with a same device type as the new device (Abstract; see “one or more sensors” throughout). With respect to Claim 9, Yager teaches accessing, via the one or more processors, an insurance profile associated with a life insurance policy of an insurance customer to obtain an inventory list ([0025];[0062]); and determining, via the one or more processors, from the inventory list, an existing number of devices already in the home with a same device type as the new device ([0062]); and wherein the determination of the home score improvement is based upon the existing number of devices already in the home with a same device type as the new device ([0062]). With respect to Claim 10, Yager teaches wherein the determining the home score improvement comprises determining the home score improvement by using a home score improvement machine learning model trained using insurance claims data ([0042];[0050]). With respect to Claim 11, Yager teaches wherein: the determining the at least one of the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore comprises determining the home safety subscore; the determining the home score improvement comprises determining a home score improvement that adding the new device to the home would make for the home safety subscore; and the new device comprises: a deadbolt lock, a security camera, a motion detector, a smart outdoor lightbulb ([0033]). With respect to Claim 12, Yager teaches wherein: the determining the at least one of the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore comprises determining the fire protection subscore; the determining the home score improvement comprises determining a home score improvement that adding the new device to the home would make for the fire protection subscore; and the new device comprises: a smoke detector, an indoor sprinkler system, or a security camera ([0033-34]). With respect to Claim 13, Yager teaches wherein: the determining the at least one of the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore comprises determining the sustainability subscore; the determining the home score improvement comprises determining a home score improvement that adding the new device to the home would make for the sustainability subscore; and the new device comprises: a smart main water shutoff valve, a smart thermostat, a smart washing machine, a smart dryer, or a light emitting diode (LED) lightbulb. ([0033-34]) With respect to Claim 14, Yager teaches wherein: the determining the at least one of the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore comprises determining the home automation subscore; the determining the home score improvement comprises determining a home score improvement that adding the new device to the home would make for the home automation subscore; and the new device comprises: a smart main water shutoff valve, a smart thermostat, a smart washing machine, a smart dryer, a smart stove, a smart refrigerator, or a smart lightbulb. ([0033-34]) Response to remarks Applicant’s remarks submitted on 1/29/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. The independent claims are amended to primarily recite an initial determination of a subscore, and determining the score improving device, by determining absence thereof using computer/machine vision and imagery data. As per § 101, the claims continue to recite a method comprising the abstract idea of reviewing a home and recommending improvements for better home health, security, etc. Humans, such as home inspectors, have long performed this function (see prior art references of record). The use of machine vision to supplant human eyes and processor to make recommendations fails to overcome patent ineligibility. As per the prior art rejections, Fadell has been added to further teach the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, Applicant’s remarks directed to Yager alone are moot. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 2 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 3 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 4 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 5 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 6 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 7 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 8 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 9 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 10 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 11 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 12 Art Unit: 3696 Application/Control Number: 18/631,375 Page 13 Art Unit: 3696
Prosecution Insights