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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/656,848 entitled "HOME SCORE DETERMINATION BASED UPON PROPERTY, SAFETY, WEATHER, CONNECTIVITY AND/OR OTHER SUBSCORES" filed on January 13, 2026, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 14, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on July 24, 2025, December 5, 2024, July 16, 2024; June 14, 2024; and December 2, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A …method for generating and/or displaying home scores for a property, the …method comprising:
retrieving, …one or more attributes of the property, the one or more attributes comprising: (i) one or more property attributes, (ii) one or more safety attributes, (iii) one or more weather attributes, (iv) one or more connectivity attributes, and/or (v) one or more property insurance coverage attributes;
determining, [by the one or more processors], one or more subscores, wherein the one or more subscores include (i) a property subscore, (ii) a safety subscore, (iii) a weather subscore, (iv) a connectivity subscore, and/or (v) a property insurance coverage subscore, and wherein the determining the one or more subscores comprises determining:
the property subscore based upon the one or more property attributes;
the safety subscore based upon the one or more safety attributes;
the weather subscore based upon the one or more weather attributes;
the connectivity subscore based upon the one or more connectivity attributes; and/or
the property insurance coverage subscore based upon the one or more property insurance coverage attributes;
generating, ….an overall home score of the property based upon the one or more subscores by setting weights to subscores of the one or more subscores based upon attribute types; and
displaying, …(i) one or more of the subscores, and (ii) the overall home score.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to "determining...home subscores", "determining.... home score", and "generating...the overall home score" recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer-implemented] [by one or more processors][by the one or more processors,] [via the one or more processors]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0006] generating and/or displaying home scores for a property ...may be implemented via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, transceivers, servers, memory units, augmented reality (AR) glasses or headsets, virtual reality (VR) headsets, extended or mixed reality headsets, smart glasses or watches, wearables, voice bot or chatbot, ChatGPT bot, airplanes, satellites, drones or other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and/or other electronic or electrical components”. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 2-9:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 10:
“computer-implemented”, “external database and/or a mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 11:
“computer-implemented”, “via the one or more processors”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“training… a machine learning algorithm”: merely applying machine learning technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 12-14:
“computer-implemented”, “via the one or more processors”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0006] generating and/or displaying home scores for a property ...may be implemented via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, transceivers, servers, memory units, augmented reality (AR) glasses or headsets, virtual reality (VR) headsets, extended or mixed reality headsets, smart glasses or watches, wearables, voice bot or chatbot, ChatGPT bot, airplanes, satellites, drones or other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and/or other electronic or electrical components”. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Independent Claim 15 recites:
“A …for generating and/or displaying home scores for a property, the …configured to:
retrieve one or more attributes of the property, the one or more attributes comprising: (i) one or more property attributes, (ii) one or more safety attributes, (iii) one or more weather attributes, (iv) one or more connectivity attributes, and/or (v) one or more property insurance coverage attributes;
determine one or more subscores, wherein the one or more subscores include (i) a property subscore, (ii) a safety subscore, (iii) a weather subscore, (iv) a connectivity subscore, and/or (v) a property insurance coverage subscore, and wherein the determine the one or more subscores comprises determining:
the property subscore based upon the one or more property attributes;
the safety subscore based upon the one or more safety attributes;
the weather subscore based upon the one or more weather attributes;
the connectivity subscore based upon the one or more connectivity attributes; and/or
the property insurance coverage subscore based upon the one or more property insurance coverage attributes;
generate an overall home score of the property based upon the one or more subscores by setting weights to subscores of the one or more subscores based upon attribute types; and
display: (i) one or more of the subscores, and (ii) the overall home score.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to "determine...home subscores", " determine.... home score", and "generate...the overall home score" recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer system] [computer system comprising one or more processors]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0006] generating and/or displaying home scores for a property ...may be implemented via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, transceivers, servers, memory units, augmented reality (AR) glasses or headsets, virtual reality (VR) headsets, extended or mixed reality headsets, smart glasses or watches, wearables, voice bot or chatbot, ChatGPT bot, airplanes, satellites, drones or other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and/or other electronic or electrical components”. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 16-17:
“computer system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 18:
“computer system”, “external database and/or a mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0006] generating and/or displaying home scores for a property ...may be implemented via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, transceivers, servers, memory units, augmented reality (AR) glasses or headsets, virtual reality (VR) headsets, extended or mixed reality headsets, smart glasses or watches, wearables, voice bot or chatbot, ChatGPT bot, airplanes, satellites, drones or other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and/or other electronic or electrical components”. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Independent Claim 19 recites:
“A …for generating and/or displaying home scores for a property that, ….to:
retrieve one or more attributes of the property, the one or more attributes comprising: (i) one or more property attributes, (ii) one or more safety attributes, (iii) one or more weather attributes, (iv) one or more connectivity attributes, and/or (v) one or more property insurance coverage attributes;
determine one or more subscores, wherein the one or more subscores include (i) a property subscore, (ii) a safety subscore, (iii) a weather subscore, (iv) a connectivity subscore, and/or (v) a property insurance coverage subscore, and wherein the determine the one or more subscores comprises determining:
the property subscore based upon the one or more property attributes;
the safety subscore based upon the one or more safety attributes;
the weather subscore based upon the one or more weather attributes;
the connectivity subscore based upon the one or more connectivity attributes; and/or
the property insurance coverage subscore based upon the one or more property insurance coverage attributes;
generate an overall home score of the property based upon the one or more subscores by setting weights to subscores of the one or more subscores based upon attribute types; and
display: (i) one or more of the subscores, and (ii) the overall home score.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to "determine...home subscores", " determine.... home score", and "generate...the overall home score" recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions] [when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0006] generating and/or displaying home scores for a property ...may be implemented via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, transceivers, servers, memory units, augmented reality (AR) glasses or headsets, virtual reality (VR) headsets, extended or mixed reality headsets, smart glasses or watches, wearables, voice bot or chatbot, ChatGPT bot, airplanes, satellites, drones or other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and/or other electronic or electrical components”. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 20:
“tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0006] generating and/or displaying home scores for a property ...may be implemented via one or more local or remote processors, sensors, transceivers, servers, memory units, augmented reality (AR) glasses or headsets, virtual reality (VR) headsets, extended or mixed reality headsets, smart glasses or watches, wearables, voice bot or chatbot, ChatGPT bot, airplanes, satellites, drones or other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and/or other electronic or electrical components”. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-6, 10-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marotta ("SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HOME HEALTH EVALUATION AND REMEDIATION", U.S. Publication Number: 20220013222 A1),in view of Johnson (“LAND VALUE DETERMINATION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20150074002 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Marotta teaches,
A computer-implemented method for generating and/or displaying home scores for a property, the computer-implemented method comprising: retrieving, by one or more processors, one or more attributes of the property, the one or more attributes comprising: (i) one or more property attributes, (ii) one or more safety attributes, (iii) one or more weather attributes, (iv) one or more connectivity attributes, and/or (v) one or more property insurance coverage attributes; determining, by the one or more processors, one or more subscores, wherein the one or more subscores include (i) a property subscore, (ii) a safety subscore, (iii) a weather subscore, (iv) a connectivity subscore, and/or (v) a property insurance coverage subscore,
(Marotta [0107] displays a home health evaluation that includes the safety score 514 and the home health score .... may categorize aspects of home health and provide sub-scores for each category
Marotta [0022] Home health data may include various types of data that may impact home health or may reflect risks to the house, such as from acts of nature (e.g., weather, seismic activity, flooding, or the like)
Marotta [0106] type of wireless network connectivity available to the home
Marotta [0035] may be operated by an insurance provider that provides insurance coverage for the home 120 (e.g., via a home insurance policy) or that provides participation in the home health system ... the insurance provider may provide the internal home health controller)
and wherein the determining the one or more subscores comprises determining: the property subscore based upon the one or more property attributes; the safety subscore based upon the one or more safety attributes; the weather subscore based upon the one or more weather attributes; the connectivity subscore based upon the one or more connectivity attributes;
(Marotta [0107] may categorize aspects of home health and provide sub-scores for each category
Marotta [0058] to compute the safety score for the home
Marotta [0099] Some factors that may be used to determine the safety score may include aspects related to weather (e.g., frequency of tornados, electrical storms, high winds, blizzards, hurricanes, or flooding, number and duration of power outages, number of Internet outages)
Marotta [0106] type of wireless network connectivity available to the home)
and/or the property insurance coverage subscore based upon the one or more property insurance coverage attributes;
(Marotta [0036] a general contractor may aggregate the insurance-risk data
Marotta [0058] to compute in an insurance profile for the home
Marotta [0060] to compute in an insurance profile for the home (e.g., as factors of risk to lightning or other hazards, likelihood of equipment failures))
generating, by the one or more processors, an overall home score of the property based upon the one or more subscores …; and displaying, via the one or more processors: (i) one or more of the subscores, and (ii) the overall home score.
(Marotta [0107] the home health engine 104 displays a home health evaluation that includes the safety score 514 and the home health score...The home health report card may include an overall health score for the home 120, may categorize aspects of home health and provide sub-scores for each category, or may itemize various aspects of home health data collected ...for individual factors.)
Marotta does not teach by setting weights to subscores of the one or more subscores based upon attribute types;
Johnson teaches,
by setting weights to subscores of the one or more subscores based upon attribute types
(Johnson [0008] a real estate appraisal
Johnson [0088] an multiply sub-category weighting factor 274B by the determined sub-category sub-score (e.g., "10" in this example) to determine a sub-category intermediate score (e.g., "30" in this example).
Johnson [0091] can apply a sub-category weighting factor to the sub-category sub-score to determine a sub-category intermediate score
Johnson [0066] Parcel data can include... the location, size, and shape of the parcel, soil attributes (e.g., soil types, texture, organic matter, fertility test results, etc.), and parcel features and improvements (e.g., drain tile).)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the property scoring of Marotta to incorporate the subscore weights of Johnson to “apply a sub-category weighting factor to the sub-category sub-score.” (Johnson [0091]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. subscore weights) to a known concept (i.e. property scoring) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to determine a sub-category intermediate score.” Johnson [0091])
Regarding Claim 2,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
wherein the determining the one or more subscores comprises determining the property subscore based upon the one or more property attributes, and wherein the one or more property attributes comprise a property age attribute, a status of property structure attribute, an efficiency of property structure attribute, a status of property systems attribute, and/or an efficiency of property systems attribute.
(Marotta [0107] may categorize aspects of home health and provide sub-scores for each category
Marotta [0075] collect construction details about the home 120 such as, for example, the age of the home...market price of the home,... the type, age, or condition of plumbing or wiring inside and outside the home
Marotta [0102] may include aspects related to electrical power use within the home 120 (e.g., efficiency of appliances or other devices,... consistency of voltage,...average length of power outages, ... whether the home is energy certified, whether appliances within the home are energy efficient, whether the home is constructed with energy efficient materials...).)
Regarding Claim 3,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
wherein the determining the one or more subscores comprises determining the safety subscore based upon the one or more safety attributes, and wherein the one or more safety attributes comprise a fire protection attribute, a burglary protection attribute, a water quality attribute, a tree overhang attribute, and/or an air quality attribute.
(Marotta [0006] determine a safety score for the residential property ...the safety score representing a measure of safety of the residential property
Marotta [0077] safety equipment (e.g.,...water sensors...)
Marotta [0079] home health system 100 may use aerial data to determine whether the home 120 has trees nearby (e.g., which may cause damage to the home 120)
Marotta [0070] indoor air quality (“IAQ”) monitors ...detect dangerous conditions such as fire or buildup of carbon monoxide,...or collect various air quality data)
Regarding Claim 4,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
wherein the determining the one or more subscores comprises determining the weather subscore based upon the one or more weather attributes, and wherein the one or more weather attributes comprise a property weatherproofing attribute, a presence of resilient building materials attribute, and/or a presence of property weather alert systems attribute.
(Marotta [0072] The home health system 100 may... submit data queries to the NOAA for weather data specific to that geographic region... generate and send weather alerts to the homeowner or occupants of the home 120 or determine how frequently the home 120 experiences various warnings or alerts over time
Marotta [0077] interior or exterior painting or weather proofing, solar installation)
Regarding Claim 5,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
wherein the determining the one or more subscores comprises determining the connectivity subscore based upon the one or more connectivity attributes, and wherein the one or more connectivity attributes comprise a property network connection strength attribute, a property network connection speed attribute, and/or a smart home devices on the property network attribute.
(Marotta [0106] type of wireless network connectivity available to the home
Marotta [0110] history of power black-outs, brown-outs, sags or surges, average length of outages, or appliance start-up or cycle times)...Internet outages
Marotta [0116] detect operational errors in appliances or other smart devices within the home
Marotta [0134] home health data from the one or more smart devices via a home network.)
Regarding Claim 6,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
wherein the determining the one or more subscores comprises determining the property insurance coverage subscore based upon the one or more property insurance coverage attributes, and wherein the one or more property insurance coverage attributes comprise attributes of: property insurance policy types associated with the property, an insurance coverage amount associated with the property, insurance deductible amounts associated with the property, and/or a home inventory associated with the property.
(Marotta [0035] may be operated by an insurance provider that provides insurance coverage for the home 120 (e.g., via a home insurance policy) ... may issue insurance policies
Marotta [0058] compute in an insurance profile for the home
Marotta [0076] insurance claims history
Marotta [0113] may automatically provide a cost discount on an insurance policy
Marotta [0118] configured to offer discounts on a home insurance policy
Marotta [0057] detect which appliances are present in the home 120 (broadly, as a part of an “asset inventory” of the house))
Regarding Claim 10,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
wherein the retrieving comprises retrieving the one or more attributes of a property from an external database and/or a mobile device associated with the property.
(Marotta [0075] external data source 132 may be third-party home data systems such as Multiple Listings Service (“MLS”), Zillow (www.zillow.com), or other Internet-accessible sources for property data.)
Regarding Claim 11,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
further comprising: training, via the one or more processors, a machine learning algorithm based upon: (i) historical attributes of historical properties, (ii) historical home scores, and/or (iii) historical insurance claims data;
(Marotta [0122] the machine learning programs may be trained by inputting sample (e.g., training) data sets
Marotta [0049] historical data indicating the electric device's past operation patterns or trends
Marotta [0076] home statistics data may include historical data, such as price history (e.g., sales history, listings history), public tax history, insurance claims history
Marotta [0027] Such scores may be used to evaluate risks, indicating more or less risk to the home and the assets within the home)
and wherein the determining the one or more subscores comprises inputting: (i) the one or more property attributes, (ii) the one or more safety attributes, (iii) the one or more weather attributes, (iv) the one or more connectivity attributes, and/or (v) the property insurance coverage attributes into the trained machine learning algorithm to determine the one or more subscores.
(Marotta [0107] evaluation that includes the safety score
Marotta [0022] Home health data may include various types of data that may impact home health or may reflect risks to the house, such as from acts of nature (e.g., weather, seismic activity, flooding, or the like)
Marotta [0106] type of wireless network connectivity available to the home
Marotta [0035] may be operated by an insurance provider that provides insurance coverage for the home 120 (e.g., via a home insurance policy) or that provides participation in the home health system ... the insurance provider may provide the internal home health controller
Marotta [0082] to evaluate various externally visible features of home data (e.g., via … machine learning…). … home health system 100 may train a model … the trained model may be configured …)
Regarding Claim 12,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
further comprising receiving, via the one or more processors, a particular type of telematics data;
(Marotta [0125] collecting internal data from electronic devices or sensors (“smart devices”) within the home or controlling such devices or sensors to perform various tasks related to home health, home safety, risk detection, and risk mitigation.)
and wherein the generating the overall home score comprises weighting at least one of the subscores based upon the particular type of telematics data.
(Marotta [Abstract] determine a home health score based upon the first or second elements of internal home health data
Marotta [0009] receive a second element ... determine a home health score for the residential property based at least in part on one or more of the first element of internal home health data and the second element of internal home health data
Marotta [0136] includes factoring the power aberrations as a negative factor)
Regarding Claim 13,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
determining, via the one or more processors, that maintenance is due for the property; and in response to the determining that the maintenance is due for the property, displaying, via the one or more processors, an alert that the maintenance is due.
(Marotta [0039] Abnormal electricity flow (“EF”) to various devices may indicate that failure is imminent, maintenance or device replacement is needed...or other corrective actions are prudent.
Marotta [0112] may determine that the failure event is an alertable event for the homeowner at operation 542 and may transmit an alert message to the homeowner)
Regarding Claim 14,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
determining, via the one or more processors, a preferred brand of a user associated with the property;
(Marotta [0054] collect manufacturer-provided or consumer protection-provided details regarding the devices)
determining, via the one or more processors, a product of the determined preferred brand that will improve the overall home score; and recommending, via the one or more processors, the product to the user.
(Marotta [0024] may provide a home health score to the homeowner, which may be used to identify areas of improvement or risk reduction that may impact safety or insurability of the home
Marotta [0054] The home power management system 226 may identify and provide details on what appliances or other consuming devices are within the home 120 (e.g., manufacturer make and model), thereby allowing the home management system 100 to identify some property on the premises...evaluate value of devices (e.g., replacement costs)
Marotta [0118] to improve home health or reduce risk to the home ...may help the homeowner remediate current or potential problems)
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claims 7-9, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marotta and Johnson in view of Fanelli (“METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR INVENTORYING PERSONAL PROPERTY AND BUSINESS EQUIPMENT”, U.S. Patent Number: 9092753 B1).
Regarding Claim 7,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
wherein the one or more property insurance coverage attributes comprise the home inventory, and wherein the method further comprises creating the home inventory
(Marotta [0057] detect which appliances are present in the home 120 (broadly, as a part of an “asset inventory” of the house))
Marotta does not teach by: presenting, via the one or more processors, a first checklist of items for a first room; in response to the presenting the first checklist, receiving, via the one or more processors, a first list of items for the first room; presenting, via the one or more processors, a second checklist of items for a second room; in response to the presenting the second checklist, receiving, via the one or more processors, a second list of items for the second room; and adding the first list of items to the second list of items.
Fanelli teaches,
by: presenting, via the one or more processors, a first checklist of items for a first room; in response to the presenting the first checklist, receiving, via the one or more processors, a first list of items for the first room; presenting, via the one or more processors, a second checklist of items for a second room; in response to the presenting the second checklist, receiving, via the one or more processors, a second list of items for the second room; and adding the first list of items to the second list of items.
(Fanelli [Col 5, Lines 17-22] The inventory detail screen includes an item name field, a property field to identify one or more physical property addresses corresponding to the user, a location field to identify a location within the property where the item is found as in a room or area, and one or more item detail fields selected from a list including category
Fanelli [Col 5, Lines 47-48] add or modify entries on pre-programmed lists located on the Items sub-tab
Fanelli [Col 15, Lines 43-47] the user can inventory which items are located at the home and at the business separately or collective, with the ability to sort the inventory by property, location, category, and other parameters and combinations on the Inventory tab)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the property scoring of Marotta to incorporate the inventorying teachings of Fanelli “for documenting an inventory of items.” (Fanelli [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. inventorying) to a known concept (i.e. property scoring) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “creating an inventory list, adding multiple items to the inventory list, adding details about one or more of the items in the inventory list, identifying one or more real properties … for creating the inventory list for the client user.” Fanelli [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 8,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
wherein the displaying includes displaying indications of subscores … of the subscores.
(Marotta [0107] may categorize aspects of home health and provide sub-scores for each category)
Marotta does not teach comprising color-coded indications.
Fanelli teaches,
comprising color-coded indications
(Fanelli [Col 20, Lines 44-45] Any type marking or color could be used to indicate content as previously described.
Fanelli [Col 21, Lines 31-44] The inventory system includes the capability for “green checkmark” content indicators for each of the inventory item sub-tab....Any suitable shape or color marking could be used for this feature.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the property scoring of Marotta to incorporate the color-coding of Fanelli where “Any type marking or color could be used to indicate content.” (Fanelli [Col 20, Lines 44-45]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. color-coding ) to a known concept (i.e. property scoring) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “To save the user time and make it easier for the user to know which tabs have content.” Fanelli [Col 19, Lines 58-60])
Regarding Claim 9,
Marotta and Johnson teach the property scoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Marotta teaches,
wherein the displaying includes displaying an indication of the overall home score …. of the overall home score.
(Marotta [0107] the home health engine 104 displays a home health evaluation that includes the safety score 514 and the home health score...The home health report card may include an overall health score for the home 120, may categorize aspects of home health and provide sub-scores for each category, or may itemize various aspects of home health data collected ...for individual factors.)
Marotta does not teach as a color-coded indication.
Fanelli teaches,
as a color-coded indication
(Fanelli [Col 20, Lines 44-45] Any type marking or color could be used to indicate content as previously described.
Fanelli [Col 21, Lines 31-44] The inventory system includes the capability for “green checkmark” content indicators for each of the inventory item sub-tab....Any suitable shape or color marking could be used for this feature.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the property scoring of Marotta to incorporate the color-coding of Fanelli where “Any type marking or color could be used to indicate content.” (Fanelli [Col 20, Lines 44-45]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. color-coding ) to a known concept (i.e. property scoring) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “To save the user time and make it easier for the user to know which tabs have content.” Fanelli [Col 19, Lines 58-60])
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on January 13, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“That is, the specification explicitly teaches that setting weights based upon attribute types "increases the accuracy of the determination of the overall home score."
Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention thus provides a technical solution to a technical problem-namely, how to generate more accurate home scores when different types of attribute data are available."
Examiner responds:
“[G]enerat(ing) more accurate home scores when different types of attribute data are available” is not a technical field of endeavor (additional element) but rather amounts to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data which expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
An abstract idea cannot integrate another abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Johnson (“LAND VALUE DETERMINATION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20150074002 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of newly amended claims, a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant’s remarks are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gibson (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING A HOME SCORE FOR A USER”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20230377070 A1) proposes generating and/or displaying an overall home score for a property. The method may include: retrieving one or more attributes of a property; determining one or more home score factors from the attributes; generating an overall home score; generating a neighborhood score; and displaying the overall home score, the neighborhood score and/or a map.
Blank (“METHODS SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR MONITORING INVENTORY AND PRICES”, U.S. Patent Number: US 8666847 B1) proposes an inventory story monitor … involves predicting a number of inventory items on a future date based at least in part upon a number of the inventory items on the current date and a rate of consumption of the inventory items, which is determined based on prior sales of the inventory items. The method also involves determining a price trend of the inventory items. In addition, the method involves determining whether to purchase the inventory items on the current date based at least in part upon the predicted number of inventory items, a rate of consumption of the inventory items, and a price trend of the inventory items. Further, the method involves displaying to the user an indicator of whether to purchase the inventory items on the current date or on a later date.
Hayward (“REAL PROPERTY MONITORING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING DAMAGE AND OTHER CONDITIONS”, U.S. Patent: 10943464 B1) proposes machine learning systems, methods, and techniques for detecting damage and/or other conditions associated with a building, land, structure, or other real property using a real property monitoring system are disclosed. The property monitoring system is used in conjunction with machine learning techniques to determine and/or predict various conditions associated with the real property, including particular damage thereto, e.g., based upon dynamic characteristic data obtained via on-site sensors, static characteristic data, third-party input descriptive of an event impacting the building, etc. Accordingly, damage and/or loss associated with the building/real property is more quickly and/or accurately ascertained so that suitable mitigation techniques may be applied. In some scenarios, previously undetectable or uncharacterized damage and/or other conditions may be discovered and mitigated.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695