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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 12/23/2025 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:
providing 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;
receiving a selection associated with the new device or a selection associated with the existing device; and
in response receiving the selection associated with the 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
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 providing tutorials for devices that improve one or more home scores, comprising:
providing, 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 the selection associated with the new device or the 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 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) the receiving 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 prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that:
As an initial matter, applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 improves accuracy and reliability of the system…Applicant respectfully submits that the improved accuracy and reliability demonstrates improved technical functioning, thereby demonstrating subject matter eligibility. See M.P.E.P. §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that, particularly at Step 2B, the ordered combination of features in claim 1 demonstrates subject matter eligibility. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites a particular ordered combination of steps that go beyond merely applying any alleged abstract idea to generic computer components.
In response, the Examiner notes, that while applicant purports an improvement in the disclosure and these arguments, such an improvement is not described with relation to any specific manner of technology or technical field, but rather as to an improvement to “the system”. Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed invention improves any technology or technical field, but rather, has improved a commercial process for evaluating a home score based on device installation or repair.
Applicant further asserts:
Amended claim 1 recites…This specific sequence of steps particularly the combination of receiving user input indicating completion, then receiving imagery data, and then analyzing that imagery data to confirm the installation or repair represents a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of steps that provides a specific technical solution to the technical problem of verifying device installation or repair status.
In response, the Examiner notes that specificity, in and of itself, does not impart eligibility on a claimed invention, and that a more specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that “verifying device installation or repair status” is not a technical problem specifically arising in any particular technical field, but instead address a commercial problem in determining a home score.
Applicant further asserts:
Furthermore, the claimed combination is not merely a drafting effort designed to monopolize an abstract idea. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific implementation that uses imagery analysis to verify user-reported completion of device installation or repair. This verification mechanism addresses a specific technical problem-namely, the unreliability of user self-reporting-by employing a technical solution that analyzes imagery data to confirm the actual state of the device. The ordered combination of displaying an option for indicating completion, receiving the user's selection of that option, receiving imagery data depicting the device, and then confirming by analyzing the imagery data provides meaningful limitations that narrow the claim to a particular technical implementation rather than preempting all ways of verifying device installation or repair.
In response, the Examiner reminds applicant that the Alice/Mayo framework is the test for preemption. This framework was applied in the rejection above, and the claims were found to be ineligible.
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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