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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received April 13, 2026, and the e-petition for withdrawing abandonment approved June 15, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10861115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, see the chart below, where claims 1, 8, and 15 are grouped for being similar in scope.
Clm No
Clm Txt
14497539
1, 8, 15
A system, comprising: a computer having a memory and a processor, the computer implementing a home assessment by executing one or more application programs stored in the memory, the one or more application programs including: a home data system receiving first data associated with a structure from a first data store and second data associated with a location of the structure from a second data store,
1
A system, comprising: a computer having a memory and a processor, the computer configured to implement a modular home assessment to: execute an application on the computer, to: receive, from a first database, first data associated with a structure, the first data including at least an age of the structure; receive, from a second database, second data specifying a unique location of the structure
1, 8, 15
a template generating system generating, based at least in part on the first data and the second data, a computer-implemented home assessment template of one or more items associated with the structure to be evaluated
1
based on the received first data and the received second data: generate, by a home data module, a profile of the structure, and generate, by a template generating module and after receipt of the first data and the second data, a computer-implemented template of items associated with the structure to be evaluated for issues or potential issues, wherein the computer-implemented template of items is customized to the profile of the structure and is configured to receive entry of information
1, 8, 15
and a user data system generating a request for data associated with the one or more items included in the computer-implemented home assessment template, identify additional information needed based on the data, receive the additional information, determine whether an issue or a potential issue exists based at least in part on analysis of the additional information, and identify one or more options for addressing the issue or the potential issue associated with the structure to provide to a user associated with the structure
1
transmit the user-entered data and the video or image data in substantially real-time to an assessment reviewer provide feedback on at least one of the user-entered data and the video or image data substantially in real-time to the assessing user, including: receive a request for first additional information associated with the item to be used for further analysis, the first additional information associated with the item being identified based on the received first data, second data and information associated with the item, the request for first additional information including a first screen including a plurality of images available for selection and transmit to the assessing user substantially in real-time a request to select a first image from the first screen receive from the assessing user substantially in real-time, through the user data module, the identified first additional information associated with the item identified in the template, the identified first additional information including a selection of a first image from the first screen transmit to the assessing user a request for further additional information associated with the item to be used for further analysis substantially in real-time, the further additional information associated with the item being identified based on the received selection of the first image, the request for further additional information including a second screen including a plurality of images available for selection
2
wherein the identified additional data is provided to the user via a user interface displayed on a computing device associated with the user
2
wherein receiving the video or image data associated with the item identified in the template includes receiving the video or image data from a mobile computing device of the user and wherein providing the options to the user includes providing the options to the user on the mobile computing device
3
wherein the user interface identifies the one or more items
1
receive from the assessing user substantially in real-time, through the user data module, the identified first additional information associated with the item identified in the template, the identified first additional information including a selection of a first image from the first screen; transmit to the assessing user a request for further additional information associated with the item to be used for further analysis substantially in real-time, the further additional information associated with the item being identified based on the received selection of the first image, the request for further additional information including a second screen including a plurality of images available for selection
9
wherein the identified additional data is indicated via a user interface output on a computing device associated with the user
7
receive, through the user data module, information associated with a second item identified in the template
10
wherein the user interface includes one or more illustrations of the one or more items
7
receive, through the user data module from the assessing user, additional user-entered data through the template substantially in real-time, the additional user-entered data being a selection of a second image from a second screen including a plurality of images and being responsive to the template of items
16
wherein the identified additional data is provided to the user via a user interface displayed on a computing device associated with the user
7
receive, through the user data module, information associated with a second item identified in the template
17
wherein the user interface identifies the one or more items
7
receive, through the user data module from the assessing user, additional user-entered data through the template substantially in real-time, the additional user-entered data being a selection of a second image from a second screen including a plurality of images and being responsive to the template of items
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12045900. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, see the chart below, where claims 1, 8, and 15 are grouped for being similar in scope.
Clm No
Instant Application.
US Pat No 12045900
1, 8, 15
A system, comprising: a computer having a memory and a processor, the computer implementing a home assessment by executing one or more application programs stored in the memory, the one or more application programs including: a home data system receiving first data associated with a structure from a first data store and second data associated with a location of the structure from a second data store, and to generate a record for the structure based at least in part on the first data and the second data
1
A system, comprising: a computer having a memory and a processor, the computer configured to implement a modular home assessment by executing an application on the computer, to: generate a profile of a structure based at least in part on first data, from a first database, comprising one or more characteristics of the structure and based at least in part on second data, from a second database, comprising location information of the structure
1, 8, 15
a template generating system generating, based at least in part on the first data and the second data, a computer-implemented home assessment template of one or more items associated with the structure to be evaluated
1
generate, based at least in part on the first data and the second data, a computer-implemented template of items associated with the structure to be evaluated, wherein the computer-implemented template of items is associated with the profile of the structure
1, 8, 15
and a user data system generating a request for data associated with the one or more items included in the computer-implemented home assessment template, identify additional information needed based on the data, receive the additional information, determine whether an issue or a potential issue exists based at least in part on analysis of the additional information, and identify one or more options for addressing the issue or the potential issue associated with the structure to provide to a user associated with the structure
1
receive user-entered data via the computer-implemented template and receive video or image data associated with at least one item included in the computer-implemented template transmit user-entered data and video or image data to an assessment reviewer receive first additional information associated with the at least one item identified in the computer-implemented template based at least in part on a request for first additional information associated with the at least one item to be used for further analysis, the first additional information associated with the at least one item being identified based on the first data, second data and information associated with the at least one item and the first additional information including a selection of a first image from a first screen including a plurality of images available for selection transmit a request to select a second image from a second screen including a second plurality of images available for selection based at least in part on a request for further additional information associated with the at least one item, the further additional information associated with the at least one item being identified based on the selection of the first image receive the further additional information associated with the at least one item identified in the computer-implemented template, the further additional information including a selection of the second image from the second screen determine whether an issue or potential issue exists based at least in part on analysis of the further additional information associated with the at least one item identified in the computer-implemented template and provide options to a user associated with the structure for addressing the issue or potential issue
2
wherein the identified additional data is provided to the user via a user interface displayed on a computing device associated with the user
1
transmit a request to select a second image from a second screen including a second plurality of images available for selection based at least in part on a request for further additional information associated with the at least one item, the further additional information associated with the at least one item being identified based on the selection of the first image
3
wherein the user interface identifies the one or more items
1
receive the further additional information associated with the at least one item identified in the computer-implemented template, the further additional information including a selection of the second image from the second screen
9
wherein the identified additional data is indicated via a user interface output on a computing device associated with the user
1
transmit a request to select a second image from a second screen including a second plurality of images available for selection based at least in part on a request for further additional information associated with the at least one item, the further additional information associated with the at least one item being identified based on the selection of the first image
10
wherein the user interface includes one or more illustrations of the one or more items
1
receive the further additional information associated with the at least one item identified in the computer-implemented template, the further additional information including a selection of the second image from the second screen
16
wherein the identified additional data is provided to the user via a user interface displayed on a computing device associated with the user
1
transmit a request to select a second image from a second screen including a second plurality of images available for selection based at least in part on a request for further additional information associated with the at least one item, the further additional information associated with the at least one item being identified based on the selection of the first image
17
wherein the user interface identifies the one or more items
1
receive the further additional information associated with the at least one item identified in the computer-implemented template, the further additional information including a selection of the second image from the second screen
Therefore, claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant amended the independent claims, 1, 8, and 15, to state the following:receiving first data associated with a structure from a first data store and second data associated with a location of the structure from a second data store,
After a search of the originally filed disclosure there does not appear to be support for receiving first data and second data from a first data store or a second data store. Therefore, without support in the originally filed disclosure this is new matter.
This rejection can be overcome by showing where the support was drawn for this limitation.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15.
Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112.
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. Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, which are similar in scope, recite(s)
implementing a home assessment receiving first data associated with a structure and second data associated with a location of the structure, and to generate a record for the structure based at least in part on the first data and the second data ; generating, based at least in part on the first data and the second data, a home assessment template of one or more items associated with the structure to be evaluated; and generating a request for data associated with the one or more items included in home assessment template, identify additional information needed based on the data, receive the additional information, determine whether an issue or a potential issue exists based at least in part on analysis of the additional information, and identify one or more options for addressing the issue or the potential issue associated with the structure to provide to a user associated with the structure.
These steps are mental process steps of observation and judgment, and generation steps that can be performed on paper. A record and request for data can be generated by pen and paper. Information received is observations, and determining whether an issue exists based on analysis is judgment, as well as identifying options for addressing an issue. Therefore the steps recited are a mental process which is a patent ineligible abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements amount to generic computing components applied to the abstract idea. In combination they amount to instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1-2).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
A system, comprising: a computer having a memory and a processor, the computer
by executing one or more application programs stored in the memory, the one or more application programs including: a home data system
a first / second data store
a template generating system generating
computer-implemented generating
a user data system
the computer-implemented step
Claim 8 recites:
computer-implemented method
a first / second data store
computer- implemented template
It is noted that the template is described as the following:
the template may be transmitted in a hard copy document. In other examples, the template may be transmitted to the user electronically (e.g., via email). In still other examples, the template may be available to the user via an on-line application or an application associated with a computing device. For instance, the template may be accessible via the user’s mobile device which may permit the user to directly enter information associated with each item being assessed, capture video or photographic images, etc., which may then be used to evaluate the items, update the home record and may be stored by the system.
Par 043.
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor, memory, and a communication interface, cause the computing platform to:
a first / second data store
Computer implemented template
Therefore, because the combination of additional elements in the system and CRM claims are generic computing components applied to the abstract idea, they are not a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in the practical application section is carried over. For the same reason that the combination is not a practical application, it is not significantly more.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further recite additional elements that are generic computing components that, when combined with additional elements in the independent claims, amount to instructions to apply a generic computer to the abstract idea; or they recite abstract idea elements such as that an item is a roof of a structure.
Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman, US PGPUB 2014/0279225 A1 ("Friedman") in view of Connolly et al., US PGPUB 2015/0067018 A1 ("Connolly").
Per claims 1, 8, and 15, which are similar in scope, Friedman teaches A system, comprising: a computer having a memory and a processor, the computer implementing a home assessment by executing one or more application programs stored in the memory, the one or more application programs including: a home data system receiving first data associated with a structure from a first data store and second data associated with a location of the structure from a second data store, in par 017: "According to some examples, system 100 can be implemented through software that operates on a computing device, such as a mobile computing device. The components of system 100 can combine to assist a user in conducting an inspection of an asset by providing instructions that are tailored to the type of asset being inspected. Based on the user input received corresponding to the instructions, system 100 can generate a report for the inspection." in par 020: "The instruction generate 110 can receive information about the type of asset 113 as well as other information about the asset, such as one or more characteristics of the asset…. other inputs that indicate one or more characteristics of the asset (e.g., style, location, age, etc.)" See also par 021: "The user can then provide input that indicates one or more characteristics of the real estate property, such as the type of real estate property (e.g., a house, a condo, an apartment, a business property, land, etc.), the location the property is located in, the age of the real estate property (e.g., when it was built)," For receiving data associated with a structure and location of structure from a first/second data store see par 018: “In one example, system 100 includes an instruction generate 110, a response associate 120, a report generate 140, and a service interface 160. System 100 can also include one or more databases, such as an instructions database 130 and a templates database 150 that are stored in a memory resource of a computing device that operates system 100. The components of system 100 can combine to provide a tool or guide in assisting a user to conduct an inspection of an asset. The tool or guide can provide instructions that are tailored specifically to the type of asset and/or characteristics of the asset. In some examples, system 100 can be operated on a computing device as part of a program or application.”
Friedman then teaches and to generate a record for the structure based at least in part on the first data and the second data ; a template generating system generating, based at least in part on the first data and the second data, a computer-implemented home assessment template of one or more items associated with the structure to be evaluated; in par 022: "Based on the asset type 113 and/or one or more characteristics of the asset, the instruction generate 110 can provide instructions 111 that guide the user in conducting an inspection of the asset. These instructions 111 can be specific to or be particularly tailored for the asset type 113. For example, an instructions database 130 can store a plurality of instructional content that are associated with different types of assets, as well as different characteristics of the assets. The instruction generate 110 can access or communicate with the instructions database 130 to determine, select, and/or configure the instructions 111. For example, the instruction generate 110 can reference or search the instructions database 130 using the specified asset type 113 to determine the instructions content 131 for that asset type. The instruction generate 110 can then provide the instructions 111 to the user using one or more output mechanisms of the computing device." See also par 024: "The instructions 111 can be provided to the user as audio instructions via one or more speakers of the computing device and/or as displayed user interfaces via a display of the computing device. The displayed user interfaces can provide instructions in the form of text, images, and/or videos. In some examples, the user can configure the manner in which the instructions 111 are to be provided by the instruction generate 110. In response to the provided instructions, the user can provide user inputs 121 corresponding to each of the instructions via one or more input mechanisms of the computing device (e.g., a microphone, touch-sensitive display, keyboard, buttons, camera, etc.)." The displayed user interface that provides instructions in the form of text and receives user inputs corresponding to each of the instructions teaches a template.
Friedman then teaches and a user data system generating a request for data associated with the one or more items included in the computer-implemented home assessment template, in par 025: “The response associate 120 can operate in connection with the instruction generate 110 to associate the received user inputs 121 with the appropriate instructions 111. For example, the instructions 111 can include a question or request pertaining to a particular aspect of the inspection and provide multiple answer choices for the request.” See also par 049: “FIG. 3C illustrates a user interface 320 that displays instructions prompting the user to inspect or check a certain aspect of the asset. In the example of FIG. 3C, the user interface 320 provides instructions 322 for inspecting the foundation of the real property (e.g., "Check the exterior of the house: Are there cracks on the walls? Are there shifts in foundation?"). The user interface 320 also provides an input field 324, in which the user can input information regarding the foundation inspection. The user interface 320 can also provide a selectable feature 326 corresponding to a camera that, when selected, enables the user to take photo(s) and/or video(s) for purposes of documenting or recording information pertaining to the aspect of the asset being inspected. When the user has finished providing information related to the instructions 322, the user can select the "continue" feature to continue with the asset inspection. The asset inspection application can then display another user interface and/or other instructions prompting the user to inspect other parts of the asset with respect to the foundation inspection or to inspect another aspect of the asset when the foundation inspection is completed (e.g., the roof, the electrical system, etc.).”
Friedman does not teach identify additional information needed based on the data; receive the additional information; determine whether an issue or a potential issue exists based at least in part on analysis of the additional information; and identify one or more options for addressing the issue or the potential issue associated with the [item] to provide to a user associated with the [item]
Connolly teaches identify additional information needed based on the data in par 042: “In response to receiving at least some of this identification information into the user device 104 via the user interface 200, at least one of the user device 104 and/or the analysis system 102 identifies one or more potential problems (e.g., faults) with the equipment 108 and/or component subsystem 110 that is identified by or associated with the identification information. For example, one or more memory devices 112 (shown in FIG. 1) that are accessible to the user device 104 and/or the analysis system 102 may store lists, tables, databases, or other memory structures that group or otherwise associate potential problems with various equipment 108 and/or component subsystems 110. The memory device(s) 112 may include computer hard drives, flash drives, ROM, RAM, removable drives, EEPROM, or the like, that is disposed within or otherwise coupled with the user device 104 and/or analysis system 102, and/or that is remote from (e.g., not connected to or included within) the user device 104 and/or the analysis system 102.”
Connolly then teaches receive the additional information, in par 049: "The monitoring icons 402 may be selected by the user (e.g., by touching, "clicking," and so on, the icons 402 on the user device 104) to cause data from or about the component subsystem 110 and/or equipment 108 to be communicated to the user device 104, the analysis system 102, and/or one or more of the resources 106. Sensors may be connected with or disposed relatively near the component subsystem 110 and/or the equipment 108 being examined. Selecting one or more of the monitoring icons 402 can cause the sensors associated with measuring data about the component subsystem 110 and/or the equipment 108 related to the respective icon 402 to communicate data to the user device 104, the analysis system 102, and/or one or more of the resources 106."
Connolly then teaches determine whether an issue or a potential issue exists based at least in part on analysis of the additional information, in par 051: "The data that is obtained from the sensors can be communicated to the analysis system 102 and/or the resources 106 to identify a potential problem of the component subsystem 110 and/or equipment 108. By way of example, this data may include, but is not limited in all embodiments to, temperatures, pressures, speeds, horsepower, voltage, amperes, and the like, of the equipment 108 and/or component subsystems 110. The analysis system 102 and/or the resources 106 may examine the sensor data to predict a potential problem of the equipment 108 and/or component subsystems 110. For example, the analysis system 102 may examine the sensor data to determine if the data exceeds or falls below thresholds, exhibits trends, or otherwise indicates a potential fault. This potential fault may be automatically presented to the user on the user device 104 and/or may be automatically selected as a user selected potential problem. Alternatively, the sensor data may be examined by the user device 104 to identify the potential problem."
Connolly then teaches and identify one or more options for addressing the issue or the potential issue associated with the [item] to provide to a user associated with the [item] in pars 056-057: "The memory device 112 may include recommended work scopes associated with the potential problem selected by the user and/or identified using the sensor data. Once a potential problem is selected or identified, the analysis system 102 and/or resources 106 may identify one or more work scopes that are recommended for addressing (e.g., fixing) the potential problem. These identified work scopes are communicated to the user device 104 (or pointers to the work scopes in the memory device 112 are sent to the user device 104, which may obtain the work scopes from the memory device 112).
The work scopes include a recommended series of one or more actions to perform on or with the equipment 108 and/or component subsystem 110 in order to further examine, maintain, repair, or replace the equipment 108 and/or component subsystem 110 of the equipment 108 that is associated with the selected problem."
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure template assessment teaching of Friedman with the determining an issue and identifying options for addressing the issue teaching of Connolly because Connolly teaches an improvement on current technology before Applicant's filing date, which are guides that are text based instructions. See par 003. These guides may direct users to take relatively unsafe actions. See Id. Connolly's teachings instead "guide the operator through one or more of diagnosing, repairing, testing, or replacing the one or more components of the system." See par 004. Connolly's teachings therefore improve upon providing solutions to users, and one would be motivated to modify Friedman with Connolly so that users would have improved access to solutions. For these reasons, one would be motivated to modify Friedman with Connolly.
Per claims 2, 9, and 16, which are similar in scope, Friedman and Connolly teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, above. Friedman does not teach wherein the identified additional data is provided to the user via a user interface displayed on a computing device associated with the user.
Connolly teaches wherein the identified additional data is provided to the user via a user interface displayed on a computing device associated with the user in par 045: “FIG. 3 illustrates another example of the user interface 200 displayed by the user devices 104. Responsive to receiving the identification information, a group of one or more potential problems associated with the equipment 108 and/or component subsystem 110 under examination may be presented on the user device 104. In the illustrated example, a list 300 of user-selectable potential problems is displayed as emanating from the window 208. Optionally, the potential problems may be presented in another manner. The list 300 shown in FIG. 3 includes several potential problems associated with a rail vehicle, such as a locomotive. If other identification information had been provided, then another list of potential problems may be displayed. The user can select one or more of these potential problems in the list 300, such as by pressing the touchscreen or using a stylus, electronic mouse, or the like, to select one or more potential problems of the component subsystem 110 and/or equipment 108.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure template assessment teaching of Friedman with the determining an issue and identifying options for addressing the issue teaching of Connolly because Connolly teaches an improvement on current technology before Applicant's filing date, which are guides that are text based instructions. See par 003. These guides may direct users to take relatively unsafe actions. See Id. Connolly's teachings instead "guide the operator through one or more of diagnosing, repairing, testing, or replacing the one or more components of the system." See par 004. Connolly's teachings therefore improve upon providing solutions to users, and one would be motivated to modify Friedman with Connolly so that users would have improved access to solutions. For these reasons, one would be motivated to modify Friedman with Connolly.
Per claims 3 and 17, which are similar in scope, Friedman and Connolly teach the limitations of claims 2 and 16, above. Friedman further teaches wherein the user interface identifies the one or more items in Fig 3C where the item of foundation is identified.
Per claims 4, 11, and 18, which are similar in scope, Friedman and Connolly teach the limitations of claims 3 and 17, above, and 10, below. Friedman further teaches the one or more items include a roof of the structure in par 048: “The user interface can provide instructions that guide the user to inspect the roof, the basement, the attic, the air conditioning or heating system, the plumbing, the electrical system, the water heater, the fire alarm system, the sprinkler system, the appliances, etc.”
Per claim 10, Friedman and Connolly teach the limitations of claim 9, above. Friedman does not teach wherein the user interface includes one or more illustrations of the one or more items.
Connolly teaches wherein the user interface includes one or more illustrations of the one or more items in Fig 6 and par 075: “FIG. 6 illustrates another example of a recommended work scope 600 that may be displayed on the user device 104. The recommended work scope 600 can be used to direct the user on how to further examine or fix a problem or fault of the equipment 108 and/or component subsystem 110. In the illustrated example, the work scope 600 is a text- and image-based work scope that includes several actions 602 to be performed in completing the work scope 600. Although ten actions 602 are visible in FIG. 6, another number of action(s) 602 may be provided.” The work scope teaches the item to be evaluated.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure template assessment teaching of Friedman with the determining an issue and identifying options for addressing the issue teaching of Connolly because Connolly teaches an improvement on current technology before Applicant's filing date, which are guides that are text based instructions. See par 003. These guides may direct users to take relatively unsafe actions. See Id. Connolly's teachings instead "guide the operator through one or more of diagnosing, repairing, testing, or replacing the one or more components of the system." See par 004. Connolly's teachings therefore improve upon providing solutions to users, and one would be motivated to modify Friedman with Connolly so that users would have improved access to solutions. For these reasons, one would be motivated to modify Friedman with Connolly.
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman, US PGPUB 2014/0279225 A1 ("Friedman") in view of Connolly et al., US PGPUB 2015/0067018 A1 ("Connolly"), further in view of Battcher et al., US PGPUB 20150093047 A1 (“Battcher”).
Per claims 5, 12, and 19, which are similar in scope, Friedman and Connolly teach the limitations of claims 4, 11, and 18, above. Friedman does not teach wherein the user interface includes an image of at least one of the roof or a portion of the roof.
Battcher teaches a system for providing a roof guide. See abstract.
Battcher teaches wherein the user interface includes an image of at least one of the roof or a portion of the roof in pars 046-047 and Figs 2D-2F:
“Referring now to FIG. 2D, a graphical user interface 200D is illustrated. FIG. 2D illustrates a plurality of images that represent Asphalt roofs with hail damage. The user may enter the query "Asphalt Hail" 210D in the data entry field 205D. In some implementations in response to the query, the mobile application may provide the query to the central server, and retrieve at least one first roof image from the one or more databases. For example, the query "Asphalt Hail" 210D may be forwarded to the roof guide 140. The roof guide 140 may search the roof database 115 for information related to the term "Asphalt Hail". A first roof image 215D may be associated with the terms "Asphalt" and "Hail", a second roof image 220D may be associated with the term "Asphalt", and a third roof image 225D may be associated with the term "Hail". The system may retrieve such images from the one or more databases, such as the roof database 115, to aid the user in identifying the type of roof and/or the type of damage.
Referring now to FIG. 2E, a graphical user interface 200E is illustrated. FIG. 2E illustrates a plurality of example images that represent Asphalt roofs with hail damage. The user may enter the search query "Asphalt, Hail" 210E in the data entry field 205E. Images 215E may be retrieved in response to the search query. For example, image 220E illustrates hail damage to an asphalt roof.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the template generation teaching of Friedman with the roof image teaching of Battcher because Battcher teaches in par 005: “A user may be inspecting a roof and may want to know the type of roof. In some instances the user may want to know the type of damage to a roof. Potential damage to a roof may be a result of several factors, including an event-related, a man-made factor, an installation defect, and a product-related factor. It is therefore desirable to have a roof guide that includes a database of reference images related to a type of roof, and/or a type of damage.” One would be motivated to add the roof guide to Friedman, which teaches roof inspection (see above) to further aid the inspection of a roof. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Friedman with Battcher.
Per claims 6, 13, and 20, which are similar in scope, Friedman and Connolly teach the limitations of claims 3, 10, and 17, above. Friedman does not teach the user interface includes at least two user selectable options illustrating the one or more items in different states.
Battcher teaches the user interface includes at least two user selectable options illustrating the one or more items in different states in par 050: “In some implementations the one or more selectable menus to input the second roof image may include a first menu to select the second roof image from an existing repository of images, such as the roof database, and a camera menu to capture a camera image of the roof. For example, the first menu may state "Choose Existing" to prompt the user to select an image from an existing repository of images. The camera menu may state "Take Photo" to prompt the user to capture the camera image with a mobile camera. In some implementations the user may select the first menu to select the second roof image from an existing repository of images, and the mobile application 135 may identify the selection of the first menu. In response to the selection of the first menu, the mobile application 135 may provide the user access to images on the client device 130, and/or may retrieve images from the roof database 115, and provide the user with these images to select from. For example, such images may be provided in selectable form, such as a selectable checkbox accompanying the image.”
See also par 057: “Referring now to FIG. 3A, a graphical user interface 300A is illustrated. The user may enter a search query "Asphalt, Hail" 310A in the data entry field 305A. As described with reference to FIG. 2E, a plurality of images may be provided in response to the search query 310A. In some implementations the user may select image 220E (illustrated in FIG. 2E). This image may be displayed as image 315A via the graphical user interface 300A. The displayed image 315A of the roof may be provided with a selectable menu option for "Side by Side Comparison" 320A. Upon selection of this selectable menu, the user may be directed to the next step in the process flow, as illustrated in FIG. 3B.” The user is selecting an image from 2E.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the template generation teaching of Friedman with the roof image teaching of Battcher because Battcher teaches in par 005: “A user may be inspecting a roof and may want to know the type of roof. In some instances the user may want to know the type of damage to a roof. Potential damage to a roof may be a result of several factors, including an event-related, a man-made factor, an installation defect, and a product-related factor. It is therefore desirable to have a roof guide that includes a database of reference images related to a type of roof, and/or a type of damage.” One would be motivated to add the roof guide to Friedman, which teaches roof inspection (see above) to further aid the inspection of a roof. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Friedman with Battcher.
Per claims 7 and 14, which are similar in scope, Friedman, Connolly, and Battcher teach the limitations of claims 6 and 13, above. Friedman does not teach an additional user interface is generated in response to a user selection of the at least two user selectable options.
Battcher teaches an additional user interface is generated in response to a user selection of the at least two user selectable options in par 059: “Referring now to FIG. 3C, a graphical user interface 300C is illustrated providing the one or more selectable menus that may be displayed when the user selects the selectable menu representing the step: select "Take a Photo" (as illustrated with reference to FIG. 3B). As illustrated, two images may be provided for comparison purposes. The image on top may be obtained from the "Roof Guide" 305C, and may be the at least one first image 310C (e.g., image 315A in FIG. 3A). The image at the bottom may be obtained "Your Image" 315C, and may be the camera image 320C captured by the user via the mobile camera integrated into the mobile device. In some implementations the two images may be visually compared side by side to determine the type of roof and/or the type of damage. In some implementations the two images may be compared by utilizing one or more image processing techniques. In some implementations measures of similarity may be determined to further quantify the comparisons. A higher measure of similarity may be more indicative of the two images being similar. For example, a second roof image may be compared with a first roof image with hail characteristics. A higher measure of similarity may allow a logic module configured into the process environment 100 to conclude that the type of damage associated with the impact is from hail. The graphical user interface 300C may include another data entry field for "Notes" 325C. As described herein, the user may enter notes related to the comparison of the at least one first roof image and the second roof image. A selectable menu option "Save" 330C may be selected to save the data.” Once the user selects a selectable option it is shown as a side by side comparison in an additional user interface that is generated, see Fig. 3C.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the template generation teaching of Friedman with the roof image teaching of Battcher because Battcher teaches in par 005: “A user may be inspecting a roof and may want to know the type of roof. In some instances the user may want to know the type of damage to a roof. Potential damage to a roof may be a result of several factors, including an event-related, a man-made factor, an installation defect, and a product-related factor. It is therefore desirable to have a roof guide that includes a database of reference images related to a type of roof, and/or a type of damage.” One would be motivated to add the roof guide to Friedman, which teaches roof inspection (see above) to further aid the inspection of a roof. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Friedman with Battcher.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to RemarksDouble Patenting
Applicant has not presented substantive arguments based on guidance or law. Abeyance only available for objections or requirements as to form: “Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.” MPEP 804.
35 USC 112(f)
Overcome by amendment however noted that this is not a rejection but an interpretation.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues:
Amended independent claim 1 recites receiving first data from a first data store and second data from a second data store, generating a home assessment template, identifying additional information needed based on received data, and analyzing the additional information to determine whether an issue exists and what options exist to address it. The claimed elements recited in amended independent claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the mind. For example, the claims include multiple steps that are data driven and analyzed in real-time using different databases that are not performable in the human mind or with pen and paper. The human mind cannot access an insurance data store and a locality data store simultaneously, cross-reference those against structure-specific parameters, and automatically generate a template. Additionally, Applicant has amended the claim to clarify that the template is computer-implemented. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claim 1 is not directed to a mental process under Step 2A, Prong One.
Examiner responds:
Real time and databases are respectfully not recited in the independent claims. The generated template is broader in scope than 14/497,539 wherein here it is a template that is computer implemented with none of the specific template limitations. Likewise the real time elements are absent and thus the scope has broadened where an abstract idea is recited without a practical application. The only allowability found for 101 in that application was the practical application, which is of the abstract idea. Arguing here that there cannot be an abstract idea because of additional elements (database, something real time) is not persuasive as those elements are evaluated later, in prong 2. That the steps happen simultaneously is not apparent in the claims as this appears to be a flow of steps, step 1, step 2, etc. The claims, as in the parent claims, are in the area of real estate as this is evaluating a real property, which is a commercial interaction, a certain method of organizing human activity. Therefore, this is not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, the Office alleges the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements of the claim amount to generic computing components applied to the abstract idea, see Office Action page 14. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection and submits that the claims integrate any purported abstract ideas into a practical application.
The following additional elements recited in the independent claims exist beyond any alleged mental process:
a computer having a memory and a processor;
a home data system configured to receive and integrate data from two distinct separate data stores;
a template generating system that produces a computer-implemented home assessment template based on the combined structure and location data;
a user data system that generates requests, identifies needed additional information, receives it, performs analysis and identifies resolution options.
The USPTO Memorandum on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims dated August 4, 2025, reminds Examiners that:
In computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are
eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
This consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.
The claimed elements of amended independent claim 1 recite an integration into practical application by reciting specific steps to solve the technical problem described in the Subject Application paragraphs [0003] - [0004], that homeowners are unable to effectively evaluate their own structures because they lack the knowledge to know what to look for and how to prioritize issues. The claimed system addresses this by automatically integrating multiple data sources, customizing an evaluation template to a specific structure, and using a data-driven inquiry process to identify issues and options. This represents an improvement in the technical process of a computer-implemented property assessment, not merely an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer. For example, the claims are similar to the patent eligible claims of PEG Example 42 which found claims eligible that "integrate accessing new patient records into improved timely access by converting records to a standard format and transmitting updated into in real-time." The present claims similarly integrate data access from two separate data stores into an improved assessment workflow, generating requests for additional information and analyzing that information automatically. As such, the recited claim elements integrate any purported judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Examiner responds: One ordinarily skilled in the art would have to find that there is a technical problem and technical solution. Homeowners not knowing how to inspect a house is a knowledge problem not a technical problem, much as a person not knowing anything does not find a technical solution to a technical problem by consulting the internet, which with youtube and other elements has much technology to assist the knowledge gap but is not solving a technical problem, it is being applied.
This is not similar to PEG 42 as there is no real time elements and there is nothing analogous to the taking documentation regardless of format and then sending it in real time to a plurality of devices. Integrating data access from two separate data stores is broader in scope than PEG 42 because it is being recited at a high level. In 42 however there is a combination of elements: taking documents regardless of format (to be clear this is file format not fonts or design choice) and sending the information in real time to wireless devices. This is a combination of elements that is a practical application and here there is no combination of elements that is similar. Instead this combination of elements is similar to the examples in MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Alice, Versata, Capital One. There is no remote or wireless device present. Therefore, this is not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2B, the Office alleges that the claim elements do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in the practical application section is carried over, see Office Action at page I5.
Applicant respectfully submits that, even assuming arguendo that the claims can be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the additional elements listed above, collectively constitute significantly more than the abstract idea. These are not generic computing components applicated in a generic manner. The claimed elements are specifically configured systems that interact with data stores, receive specific types of data, and produce specific customized outputs. The combination of these three specifically configured system operating together to produce a customized home assessment workflow is not routine or conventional in the field. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claim
1 recites significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
The arguments presented above with regards to amended independent claim 1 apply with equal weight to amended independent claims 8 and 15. For the sake of brevity, these arguments are not repeated.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claims 1-20, and the claims dependent therefrom overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.
The elements being described as such are subject to the following reasonable interpretation:
“The claimed elements are specifically configured systems that interact with data stores,” – data is received or stored in data stores and this is using data stores in their ordinary capacity see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“receive specific types of data, “ No specific kind of data is recited only subject matters of data, which pertains to the abstract idea. The difference is that subject matter is what the data describes in the abstract idea sense—the commercial interaction or mental process. Specific data types in a technical sense are in file formats or in types of data like float, int, string, or in other data types which would have compatibility issues.
“and produce specific customized outputs.” This is a part of the abstract idea as not every element from the parent claim which found an allowance based on the inclusion of a specific combination of additional elements.
“The combination of these three specifically configured system operating together to produce a customized home assessment workflow is not routine or conventional in the field.” There was no finding that this was well-understood, routine, or conventional by the examiner, only that these were apply it elements. This is sufficient to reject under 2B.
Therefore for these reasons the rejection is maintained.
35 USC 103
Applicant argues:
Friedman provides a method for conducting an inspection of an asset on a computing device where tailored instructions are generated based on asset type. An inspection report is generated based on received user inputs, see Friedman [Abstract].
Connolly teaches a system and method for industrial equipment that uses sensor data to identify potential faults, transmits data to an analysis system and provides recommended work scopes to a user device, see Connolly paragraph [0040].
Friedman has been cited to teach a template-based inspection framework but lacks the steps of identifying additional information needed, determining whether an issue exists, and providing options to address issues. For these features, the Examiner relies on Connolly. However, Connolly does not teach or suggest Applicant's feature, "determine whether an issue or a potential issue exists based at least in part on analysis of the additional information." The Examiner equates the additional information to identification information that represents the component subsystem that is being examined, repaired, and/or replaced, see Connolly paragraph [0040] and- 10 -
Office Action pages 18 and 19, however, the determination whether an issue or potential exists is actually based on sensor data not the identification information, see Connolly paragraph [OOS] which recites, "The data that is obtained from the sensors can be communicated to the analysis system and/or the resources to identify a potential problem of the component subsystem and/or equipment." Furthermore, the request for additional information is identified based on information received from an initial request, then uses that 'additional' information to determine whether an issue exists. This constitutes the adaptive inquiry, e.g., where the system identifies what specific additional information is needed based on what data was already received, that neither Friedman nor Connolly alone or in combination provide. Applicant respectfully submits then that Friedman, alone or in combination with Connolly, does not teach, suggest, or render obvious each and every element of the amended independent claims.1 For at least the reasons provided above, Application respectfully submits that the claims are patentable and requests that the 35 U.S.C. §103 of them be withdrawn.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman in view of Connolly further in view of Battcher (US 2015/0093047).
Examiner responds:
First, this is not persuasive because Applicant states that this needs to be identification information however the claim states that “identify additional information based on the data.” Connolly recites identification information but under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims this is not out of the scope of what kind of data would be received by Friedman, for example in par 28 Friedman describes the characteristics of the asset and that would not exclude identification information of an asset. Par 026 describes a water heater and within the scope of capturing a water heater would be identification of the water heater. For these reasons the “data” element of Friedman which is in combination with Connolly why additional information is received, is taught by the prior art, and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights