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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 6/23/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-20 are pending.
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.
1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-20 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-20 are directed to recommending a device to improve a home score and providing a tutorial of the device, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-3, 5-8, 10-11 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 12-16 recite a computer system comprising one or more processors. Claims 17-20 recite a computer device comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory memories. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which a purchase or repair of a device to improve a home score is recommended, and a tutorial for the device is provided to a customer, in the following limitations:
receiving, in real-time, an operational status of the existing device;
providing, based upon the operational status a recommendation to purchase a new device or repair the existing device to improve an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore;
in response receiving a selection associated with a new device or the selection associated with the existing device, providing a tutorial of the new device or the existing device.
receiving a selection of the option for indicating that the new device has been installed or the option for indicating that the existing device has been repaired;
receiving via the one or more processors imagery data depicting the new device or existing device; and
confirming by analyzing the imagery data, that the new device has been installed or the existing device has been repaired.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to make a device recommendation and provide a tutorial. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
via one or more processors
from an existing device
a signal indicating
displaying, via the one or more processors, a screen on a mobile device including an option for indicating that the new device has been installed or an option for indicating that the existing device has been repaired;
from a mobile device
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0084]-[0086] indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 12 and 17 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20
The dependent claims set forth recitations that merely embellish the abstract idea of recommending a device to improve a home score and providing a tutorial of the device, applied to the same generic technological elements as the claims from which they depend. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claims 1, 12, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
2. Claims 1, 7, 8, 11-12, 15-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linn (US 20210312789 A1) in view of Blackburn et al. (US 20210035231 A1, hereinafter Blackburn).
Regarding Claim 1
Linn discloses a computer-implemented method for using a real-time signal to provide tutorials for devices that improve one or more home scores, comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, from an existing device, in real-time, a signal indicating an operational status of the existing device (Linn: at least ¶26: structures “continuously monitored” (i.e., in real-time) via received sensor data (i.e., signal indicating operation status, or reading or sensor device))
providing, based upon the operational status, via one or more processors, a recommendation to purchase a new device or repair an existing device to improve an overall home score, a home safety subscore, a fire protection subscore, a sustainability subscore, and/or a home automation subscore (Linn: at least abstract, ¶144-145, 156-167)
receiving, via the one or more processors, a selection associated with the new device or a selection associated with the existing device; ((Linn: at least abstract, ¶144-145, 156-167)
in response receiving a selection associated with the new device or a selection associated with the existing device, providing, via the one or more processors, a tutorial of the new device or the existing device (Linn: at least abstract, ¶34, 144-145, 156-167)
Linn does not explicitly disclose:
displaying, via the one or more processors, a screen on a mobile device including an option for indicating that the new device has been installed or an option for indicating that the existing device has been repaired;
receiving, via the one or more processors, a selection of the option for indicating that the new device has been installed or the option for indicating that the existing device has been repaired;
receiving, via the one or more processors, from a mobile device, imagery data depicting the new device or existing device; and
confirming, via the one or more processors, by analyzing the imagery data, that the new device has been installed or the existing device has been repaired.
Blackburn teaches that it is known to include providing an option to confirm installation of a device by analyzing imagery data (see at least ¶13, claim 23) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Linn with the features of Blackburn, since such a modification would have provided an advantage to have a system that can determine if insurance requirements are followed during the construction process and provide notifications if there is a risk of invading insurance coverage. (Blackburn: see at least ¶6)
Regarding Claims 12, 17
Claims 12 and 17 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 7, 15, 20
Linn further discloses:
wherein: (i) the receiving the selection associated with the new device or the selection associated with the existing device comprises receiving the selection associated with the existing device, (ii) the providing the tutorial comprises providing the tutorial of the existing device, and (iii) the tutorial of the existing device includes instructions on how to repair the existing device. (Linn: at least ¶32-36)
Regarding Claim 8, 16
Linn further discloses:
confirming, via the one or more processors, that the existing device has been repaired; and in response to the confirming, recalculating, via the one or more processors, to include the repaired existing device, the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore. (Linn: at least ¶38, 99, 104)
Regarding Claim 11
Linn further discloses:
wherein the tutorial of the existing device comprises a tutorial: (i) produced by a company that sold the existing device, or (ii) uploaded by a user. (Linn: at least ¶18, 34)
3. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linn in view of Blackburn, as applied above, and further in view of Pratt et al. (US 20230154113 A1, hereinafter Pratt).
Regarding 2, 13, 18
Linn in view of Blackburn further discloses:
wherein: (i) receiving the selection associated with the new device or the selection associated with the existing device comprises receiving the selection associated with the new device, (Linn: at least ¶80)
Linn in view of Blackburn does not explicitly disclose, but Pratt teaches, in a similar environment:
(ii) the providing the tutorial comprises providing the tutorial of the new device, and (iii) the tutorial of the new device includes instructions on how to setup the new device (Pratt: at least ¶28, 49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Linn in view of Blackburn with the features of Pratt, since such a modification would have allowed a customer to access assistance more quickly and at any time of day. (Pratt: ¶3)
Regarding Claims 3, 14, 19
Linn in view of Blackburn further discloses:
confirming, via the one or more processors, that the new device has been set up; and in response to the confirming, recalculating, via the one or more processors, to include the new device, the overall home score, the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and/or the home automation subscore. (Linn: at least ¶99, 104: scores updated continuously based on new sensor data, included repaired or replaced equipment)
Regarding Claims 5, 10
Linn in view of Blackburn does not explicitly disclose, but Pratt teaches, in a similar environment:
determining, via the one or more processors, that the tutorial of the new device is incomplete; and in response to the determination that the tutorial of the new device is incomplete, determining, via the one or more processors, a question and/or statement to send to a user (Pratt: ¶61-63)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Linn in view of Blackburn with the features of Pratt, since such a modification would have allowed a customer to access assistance more quickly and at any time of day. (Pratt: ¶3)
Regarding Claim 6
Linn in view of Blackburn further discloses:
wherein the tutorial of the new device comprises a tutorial: (i) produced by a company that sold the new device, or (ii) uploaded by a user (Linn: at least ¶18, 34)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially asserts:
Applicant respectfully submits that these features integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific technical improvement to home monitoring systems. Specifically, amended claim 1 addresses the technical problem of generating accurate and timely device recommendations by establishing real-time communication between the existing device and the processors. Rather than relying on static or user-reported information, the claimed system receives operational status signals directly from the device itself, in real-time, enabling the system to dynamically assess the actual condition of the device and provide recommendations that are responsive to current device performance.
This real-time signal reception from the existing device represents a specific technical solution that improves the functioning of the computer system itself. The system is not merely applying generic computer components to an abstract idea; rather, it is configured to interface directly with physical devices in the home environment, receive real-time operational data from those devices, and use that data to drive the recommendation process. This technical integration between the home devices and the recommendation system provides a concrete improvement in how the system monitors and responds to device conditions.
Further to this point, in one example, as described by paragraphs 0321 and 0325 of the specification, the operational status includes a battery charge level. Advantageously, receiving real-time battery charge level signals from a device enables the system to proactively identify when a device requires attention before complete failure occurs, thereby improving the reliability and responsiveness of the home monitoring system.
Furthermore, the ordered combination of claim elements-receiving real-time operational status signals from an existing device, generating recommendations based upon that operational status, providing tutorials, displaying options for confirming installation or repair, receiving imagery data, and analyzing that imagery data to confirm the installation or repair-represents a specific technical implementation that goes beyond any alleged abstract idea. This combination establishes a closed-loop system that monitors device status, guides users through remediation, and verifies completion through image analysis. Such a system provides meaningful technical improvements in accuracy and reliability of home device management.
In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 improves accuracy and reliability of the system, as discussed in the specification at paragraphs 0491 and 0504.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While applicant purports some manner of technical improvement, the claims do not set forth any specific inventive configuration of devices or alteration to device operations in order to realize such an improvement. Instead, applicant’s invention leverages existing device capabilities to improve a system for assisting a homeowner in improving a home score for insurance purposes. That the operational status is received in real-time does not amount to a technical improvement, but merely sets forth applicant’s chosen time-frame for information updates. The manner in which any system monitors home devices is not in any way altered by specific ying the status information is received in “real-time”. Additionally, The Examiner asserts that improvements to “home device management” in the context of a home score for insurance amount to commercial improvements, and not technical ones. Therefore, the claims do not set forth an improvement to a technology or technical field.
Applicant further argues that the present claims are similar to those in Example 43, claim 3, because: “Just as Example 45 claim 3 was found eligible because it recites a specific technical improvement through the integration of the controller with the temperature measuring means, amended claim 1 similarly integrates the processors with the existing home device to receive real-time operational status signals. This integration with physical devices in the home environment, combined with the use of that real-time data to drive recommendations, represents a specific technical improvement analogous to that recognized in Example 45.” However, example 43 sets forth an administration of a treatment that has no corollary in the present claims. Providing a recommendation to install or repair a device and confirming installation or repair of that device amounts a manner of giving advice and confirming whether that advice is followed. This concept is not similar to a particular treatment for a medical condition, as the Courts have not specifically established that activities such as giving advice to impose a meaningful limit on an abstract idea. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts that he receiving and providing steps were not well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the Courts have repeatedly indicated that receiving and transmitting information over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity.
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims are held to be ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant generally asserts that the cited prior art references are silent to the amended features of the claims. The Examiner disagrees, and directs applicant to the rejection above, which indicates passages of Linn that disclose the newly-added features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
"The impact of IoT on the home insurance industry." (PTO-892 Reference U) discusses the use of IoT devices to monitor insurance customer risk in the insurance industry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights