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 Application
Claim(s) 1-20 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 12-16, 18, and 20 were amended. Claim(s) 3-4, 8-11, and 17 were left as originally/previously presented. Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 9-21 Applicant’s Response, filed July 22, 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page(s) 13-15, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20, do not fall within the revised Step 2A Prong 1 framework under the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, Courts have provided various sub groupings within organizing human activity grouping encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is also noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the subject matter groupings of the abstract idea. Independent Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20, recite(s) “generate, based upon a first set of data corresponding to a first location, configured to determine to usage of a plurality of items associated with the first location,” receive a plurality of sensor information associated with the first location,” “analyze the plurality of sensor information to identify sensor data indicating a first item of the plurality of items,” “execute on identified sensor data to determine (i) an existing maintenance schedule of the first item, and (ii) one or more recurring maintenance tasks included as part of the existing maintenance schedule for the first item,” “receive a plurality of new electronic data about the first item, including usage data of the first item during a designated time period subsequent to a period of time associated with the existing maintenance schedule,” “execute on the received plurality of new electronic data to determine a condition of the first item including whether an amount of usage of the first item during the designated time period is consistent with a usage data pattern associated with the determined existing maintenance schedule,” “based upon an output indicating that the amount of usage is not consistent with the usage data pattern, adjust the existing maintenance schedule of the first item to generate an adjusted maintenance schedule,” “generate at least one electronic notification indicating that performance of the one or more recurring maintenance tasks is recommended in accordance with the adjusted maintenance schedule and at an earlier time than is recommended in accordance with the existing maintenance schedule,” and “electronically transmit the at least one electronic notification to a user associated with the fist location for display of information corresponding to the adjusted maintenance schedule and the earlier time,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices, and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity and a user. The entity can determine maintenance information based on analyzing sensor data, which the entity can then provide a maintenance schedule to the user based on analyzing the data and usage data, which is merely a business relation. Thus, applicant’s claims fall within at least the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, as an initial matter, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Similar to, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., when the court provided that a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps, which, were recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
Here, applicant’s claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality that can be performed in the human mind when the limitations recite receiving a plurality of sensor information for a first location and receiving a plurality of new electrotonic data about the first item including usage data of the first item during a designated time period (i.e., collecting). The system can then generate a first set of data that corresponds to a first location (e.g., analyzing). The system can determine a usage of a plurality of items associated with the first location (e.g., analyzing). The system will analyze the plurality of sensor information to identify sensor data indicating a presence of a first item at the first location (i.e., analyzing). The system can execute the identified sensor data (i) an initial maintenance schedule of the first item and (ii) one or more recurring maintenance tasks included as part of the initial maintenance schedule (i.e., analyzing). The system can determine, based upon the received plurality of new electronic data, a condition of the first item including whether an amount of usage of the first item during the designated time period is consistent with a usage pattern associated with the determined maintenance schedule (i.e., analyzing). Based upon determination that the amount of usage is not consistent with the usage pattern, adjust the maintenance schedule of the first item and generate at least one electronic notification indicating that performance of the one or more maintenance tasks is recommended in accordance with the adjusted maintenance schedule at an earlier time than is recommended in the initial maintenance schedule (i.e., analyzing). The system can then transmit an electronic notification to a user associated with the first location of information corresponding to the earlier time (i.e., displaying), thus collecting information, analyzing that information, and then displaying the maintenance schedule information is merely related to a mental processes. Also, see "Finally, the claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 15. Therefore, the claim(s) recite at least an abstract idea of mental processes. However, even assuming arguendo, that applicant has some merit that the claims cannot be performed mentally. The claims would still fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, see above analysis.
Second, applicant argues, on page(s) 15-19 in applicant’s arguments, that the application is now integrated into a practical application. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology 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. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses the system improves the likelihood of damages to homeowners homes by performing certain mitigating actions, see applicants arguments on page 10 and applicants specification paragraph(s) 0004-0006. This is at best an improvement to the business process (e.g., abstract idea) itself rather than a technological improvement.
First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely making a bare assertion of the improvement without any details of how the home maintenance system is able to help reduce the inconveniences using non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0003-0006, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
While applicant argues that the claims improve the operational and/or system complexities by allowing users to view and monitor aspects of their home and home related services from one place, see applicant’s arguments on page 18 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0030 and 0039. However, this is at best an improvement to the business process (e.g., determining and displaying maintenance task) itself rather than a technological improvement.
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves
technology 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. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely generating, receiving, analyzing, executing, receiving, executing, determining, adjusting, and transmitting, respectively, maintenance schedule information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., monitoring platform, a machine learning (ML) tool, a location-specific machine learning model, a smart home maintenance computer system, one or more processors, a user computer device, one or more memory devices, a non-transitory computer-readable media, and a smart home computing device), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case the system will receive a plurality of sensor information for a first location and receiving a plurality of new electrotonic data about the first item including usage data of the first item during a designated time period (i.e., gathering). The system can generate a first set of data corresponding to a first location (e.g., analyzing). The system can determine usage of a plurality of items associated with the item location (e.g., analyzing). The system can then analyze the plurality of sensor information to identify sensor data indicating a presence of a first item at the first location (i.e., analyzing). The system can determine, based upon the received plurality of new electronic data, a condition of the first item including whether an amount of usage of the first item during the designated time period is consistent with a usage pattern associated with the determined maintenance schedule (i.e., analyzing). Based upon determination that the amount of usage is not consistent with the usage pattern, adjust the maintenance schedule of the first item and generate at least one electronic notification indicating that performance of the one or more maintenance tasks is recommended in accordance with the adjusted maintenance schedule (i.e., analyzing). The system can then transmit an electronic notification to a user associated with the first location (i.e., displaying), thus merely gathering information then determining and analyzing sensor and other data, and based on that adjusting a maintenance schedule that is then provide in a notification for display to a user are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining and adjusting home maintenance schedules.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Furthermore, applicant argues that the claims are integrated when the system improves computer networks, networked devices, and/or ML tools and models in connection with the technology, see applicant’s arguments on page 15. In this case, the claims and the specification lack the details as to how the network improves latency, networking protocol, system memory, an unconventional way of handling data traffic, or some other network technological improvement.
Applicant also argues that the claims are meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that improves ML tools including location-specific ML models utilized in connection with detecting inconsistent/anomalous data relative to expected electronic data/data patterns, see applicant’s arguments on page 15. However, the claims do not positively recite how the sensors detect various anomalies. And how the system hardware interacts with the sensors, which the system will use the sensors anomaly detection make certain determinations on how to mitigate the damages of the property and then making adjustments to the sensors or other hardware to repair the anomalies.
Furthermore, Applicant also argues that the claims are meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that improves the training of such ML models to identify operational trends for items, see applicant’s arguments on page 15. However, applicant’s claims fail to recite how the ML models and the sensors interact in an unconventional way to detect these operational trends, which the operational trend data is then used to improve the maintenance system. In fact, applicant’s specification provides a list of well-known machine-learning models such as linear or logistic regression, instance-based algorithms, regularization algorithms, decision trees, Bayesian networks, cluster analysis, association rule learning, artificial neural networks, deep learning, combined learning, reinforced learning, dimensionality reduction, and support vector machines. In various embodiments, the implemented ML methods and algorithms are directed toward at least one of a plurality of categorizations of machine learning, such as supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0144, thus any algorithm can be used to achieve such functions/steps.
Also, unlike Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, when the court found an improvement based on a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors. Here, in this case applicant makes no mention as to how the current process is so fundamentally different from prior processes in a manner similar to that of Thales Visionix, Inc v. United States. Nor does applicant indicate any differences that would bring about an improvement similar to the claims in Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States. In fact the sensors are no different from any other temperature, vibration, flow, leak, pressure, and/or humidity sensor(s) that can output and/or detect current data since the sensors here are merely detecting information and collecting information, which, the sensors are merely being used in their ordinary capacity similar to the additional elements in Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the claim(s) do nothing to improve how the home maintenance system and/or sensors function.
Also, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). In that case, the court provided "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). The court also stated "[T]he only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 13. In this case, there is no improvement to the machine learning tool, merely providing an ML tool to be used in a determining maintenance schedules for household appliances is not enough to be considered significantly more. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues on page(s) 12-13, that the Claims are significantly more since it recites eligible subject matter in view of Ex Parte Desjardins. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The ARP also found the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
However, as an initial matter it should be noted that applicant’s limitations were not analyzed under the abstract idea of a mathematical concept(s). Furthermore, applicant’s claims are not as narrowly claimed as Ex Parte Desjardins. In fact, applicant doesn’t recite how the machine learning tool/model interacts in an unconventional way with other sensor components to improve the function of the computer for instance automating specific maintenance task based on using the raw data from the sensors and how those sensors are configured within the smart home environment to determine if maintenance task need to be fixed or replaced. Furthermore, the claims recite the functional results (e.g., using machine learning models to merely diagnose problems) to be achieved rather than implementation details. Thus “these claims in substance [are] directed to nothing more than the performance of an abstract business practice ... using a conventional computer. Such claims are not patent- eligible." See, the above analysis; also, see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Fourth, Applicant argues, on page(s) 15-16, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on the ordered combinations similar to Example 47 since the limitations do not recite a mathematical concept. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, claim 3 of Example 47 is eligible because it recites an improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address of potentially malicious packet in step (d), automatically dropping the malicious network packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f) to offer a specific computer security solution, see July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Thus, claim 3 of Example 47 recited steps that were determined to be additional elements rather than steps/features of the abstract idea recited in the claim, July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. In fact, step (a) recited the use of specific mathematical calculations and steps (b) and (c) fall in the mental process groupings of abstract ideas, while steps (d)–(f) were found to be the non-abstract ideas.
In this case, applicant’s limitations are not as narrowly claimed as Claim 3 of Example 47. The limitations recited in Independent Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 are part of the abstract idea, which fall into one or more of the enumerated groupings (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes), see the above analysis.
Also, unlike claim 3 of Example 47, applicant’s limitations are more similar to claim 2 of Example 47. The machine learning tool here at best adjusting maintenance schedules based on usage and displaying a notification with information about the maintenance schedule, which helps with an homeowner to expand the health and/or lifespan of their home, which does not improve computer(s), sensor(s), and/or a machine learning tool but at best merely improves the business process (e.g., adjusting, determining, and transmitting maintenance task).
While applicant argues that the anomalous data may result from external events whose impact on the home may otherwise go undetected or detected much later without such an ML tool and model being used to monitor for usage data patterns as part of an integrated monitoring platform for the home, which is similar to Example 47 Claim 3, see applicant’s arguments on page 17 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0005 and 0046-0047. However, unlike Example 47 Claim 3, applicant merely provides collecting data and outputting notifications. There is nothing in the limitations reciting how the system technically interacts with, controls, or improves the physical environment or device based on sensing anomalous and how the system uses that raw data to then improve the home environment to trigger a specific control action based on the sensed anomaly event. Thus, not enough for integrating the underlying abstract ideas into a patent-eligible practical application. Therefore, applicants argument is not persuasive.
Fifth, Applicant argues on page(s) 17-18 of applicants’ arguments, that the Claims are integrated into a practical application similar to Example 42. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, applicant argues on page(s) 17-18, that applicants claims recite an improvement when the claim(s) recite electronically transmitting notifications of the adjusted/earlier maintenance recommendation in a manner similar to the real-time transmission aspect of Example 42 thus applicant’s limitations should be eligible. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, Example 42 Claim 1 was found to be integrated into a practical application based on the transformation of data limitations. It should be noted that Example 42 Claim 1 was also found to be integrated into a practical application based on the other limitations such as what the system did with this updated standardized information by transmitting this information to the users to share this information in real time regardless of the format that was input by the user. Example 42 Claim 1, also, considered the specification’s detailed recitation of a specific improvement over the problems within other prior art systems (see, the second argument, above that explains why applicant’s specification doesn’t recite a specific improvement).
In this case, applicant’s limitations are not as narrowly claimed as Example 42 Claim 1. Applicant has not provided limitations of how the maintenance data is ‘formatted,’ nor has applicant provided how the formatted information is used for other users to share this information regardless of the format of the received information. Therefore, applicant’s limitations as currently recited do not recite a specific improvement nor are they integrated into a practical application. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Sixth, Applicant argues on page(s) 13 and 19-21 of applicants’ arguments, that the Claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: (1) Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; (2) Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h): (3) Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re- evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and (4) Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d), see MPEP 2106.5(B)(II).
Examiner respectfully notes that in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/22/2026 on page(s) 16-19 and 29, the Step 2B prong was used to analysis the previous Step 2A Prong Two additional elements that merely amounted to describing how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment thus Examiner carried over the identification of the additional elements and conclusions of the additional elements that were analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, which the analysis also explained how the limitations were not an improvement to the technology. As stated above, any claim elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity should be reevaluated under Step 2B for determining if they are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer
or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive,
store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer
components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice
or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical
application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely generating, receiving, analyzing, executing, receiving, executing, determining, receiving, adjusting, and transmitting, respectively, maintenance schedule information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a ML tool, a ML model, a monitoring platform, one or more sensors, a smart home maintenance computer system, one or more processors, a user computer device, one or more memory devices, a non-transitory computer-readable media, and a smart home computing device), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception
It should also be noted that when making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a particular element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). In this case, examiner provided why these limitations are not sufficient to show an improvement (e.g., Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., TLI Communications, and Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.) and how the limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see the above analysis in the argument section(s). Thus, the claims do not provide an improvement to the home maintenance schedule system.
Also, as an initial matter, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp, found that the “novelty’’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 35 USC §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. Furthermore, the court in, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, stated that a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea the search for a 35 USC § 101 inventive concept is distinct from demonstrating 35 USC § 102 novelty rejection. And similar to the court in, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the court stated that the search for a 35 USC § 101 inventive concept is also different from an obviousness analysis under 35 USC § 103. The lack of novelty under 35 USC § 102 or obviousness under 35 USC § 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well- understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101. Examiner, respectfully, suggest that Applicant refer back to MPEP § 2106.05(d). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20, recites an entity that is able to receive information from a home, which the entity can determine usage of an item and sensor data of the item. The entity can then determine maintenance task and schedules for the item. The entity can adjust the maintenance schedule based on the item usage not being consistent with a usage pattern. The entity can then provide a notification to user of about a maintenance task. Independent Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., insurance and/or mitigating risk) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 recite(s) ““generate, based upon a first set of data corresponding to a first location, configured to determine to usage of a plurality of items associated with the first location,” receive a plurality of sensor information associated with the first location,” “analyze the plurality of sensor information to identify sensor data indicating a first item of the plurality of items,” “execute on identified sensor data to determine (i) an existing maintenance schedule of the first item, and (ii) one or more recurring maintenance tasks included as part of the existing maintenance schedule for the first item,” “receive a plurality of new electronic data about the first item, including usage data of the first item during a designated time period subsequent to a period of time associated with the existing maintenance schedule,” “execute on the received plurality of new electronic data to determine a condition of the first item including whether an amount of usage of the first item during the designated time period is consistent with a usage data pattern associated with the determined existing maintenance schedule,” “based upon an output indicating that the amount of usage is not consistent with the usage data pattern, adjust the existing maintenance schedule of the first item to generate an adjusted maintenance schedule,” “generate at least one electronic notification indicating that performance of the one or more recurring maintenance tasks is recommended in accordance with the adjusted maintenance schedule and at an earlier time than is recommended in accordance with the existing maintenance schedule,” and “electronically transmit the at least one electronic notification to a user associated with the fist location for display of information corresponding to the adjusted maintenance schedule and the earlier time,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., insurance and/or mitigating risk) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment). Furthermore, as, explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20, are similar to an entity determining maintenance task and schedules for the one or more maintenance task, which the entity will notify a user of the maintenance task and schedule. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: smart home maintenance computer system, monitoring platform, one or more processor, one or more memory devices, a ML tool, a location-specific ML model, one or more sensors, and user computer device; Claim 14: a monitoring platform, a smart home maintenance computer device, one or more processors, one or more memory devices, a ML tool, a location-specific ML model, one or more sensors, and a user computer device; and Claim 20: at least one non-transitory computer-readable media, a smart home computing device, a monitoring platform, at least one processor, memory device, a ML tool, a location-specific ML model, one or more sensors, and a user computing device) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 14, and 20, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the
concept(s) of “generating,” “receiving,” “analyzing,” “executing,” “receiving,” “executing,” determining,” “adjusting,” and “transmitting,” respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: smart home maintenance computer system, monitoring platform, one or more processor, one or more memory devices, a ML tool, a location-specific ML model, one or more sensors, and user computer device; Claim 14: a monitoring platform, a smart home maintenance computer device, one or more processors, one or more memory devices, a ML tool, a location-specific ML model, one or more sensors, and a user computer device; and Claim 20: at least one non-transitory computer-readable media, a smart home computing device, a monitoring platform, at least one processor, memory device, a ML tool, a location-specific ML model, one or more sensors, and a user computing device). Examiner, notes that the smart home maintenance computer system, monitoring platform, one or more processor, one or more memory devices, a ML tool, a location-specific ML model, one or more sensors, user computer device, at least one non-transitory computer-readable media, smart home computing device, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely generating, receiving, analyzing, executing, determining, executing, receiving, adjusting, and transmitting, respectively, maintenance schedule information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., smart home maintenance computer system, monitoring platform, one or more processor, one or more memory devices, a ML tool, a location-specific ML model, one or more sensors, user computer device, at least one non-transitory computer-readable media, smart home computing device), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case the system will receive a plurality of sensor information for a first location and receiving a plurality of new electrotonic data about the first item including usage data of the first item during a designated time period (i.e., gathering). The system can generate a first set of data corresponding to a first location (e.g., analyzing). The system can determine usage of a plurality of items associated with the item location (e.g., analyzing). The system can then analyze the plurality of sensor information to identify sensor data indicating a presence of a first item at the first location (i.e., analyzing). The system can determine, based upon the received plurality of new electronic data, a condition of the first item including whether an amount of usage of the first item during the designated time period is consistent with a usage pattern associated with the determined maintenance schedule (i.e., analyzing). Based upon determination that the amount of usage is not consistent with the usage pattern, adjust the maintenance schedule of the first item and generate at least one electronic notification indicating that performance of the one or more maintenance tasks is recommended in accordance with the adjusted maintenance schedule (i.e., analyzing). The system can then transmit an electronic notification to a user associated with the first location (i.e., displaying), thus merely gathering information then determining and analyzing sensor and other data, and based on that adjust a maintenance schedule that is then provide in a notification for display to a user are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining and adjusting home maintenance schedules.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the limitations fail to provide how the results are being accomplished. The claims lack the details as to how the system uses sensors to detect various usage patterns. And how the system can then use the sensors raw data to make certain determinations or adjustments sensors. Furthermore, there is nothing in the claim(s) or specification as to how the computer network protocol is improved. Therefore, the limitations lack the details as to how the step(s)/function(s) are being accomplished, thus merely “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, unlike Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, when the court found an improvement based on a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors. Here, in this case applicant makes no mention as to how the current process is so fundamentally different from prior processes in a manner similar to that of Thales Visionix, Inc v. United States. Nor does applicant indicate any differences that would bring about an improvement similar to the claims in Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States. In fact the sensors are no different from any other temperature, vibration, flow, leak, pressure, and/or humidity sensor(s) that can output and/or detect current data since the sensors here are merely detecting information and collecting information, which, the sensors are merely being used in their ordinary capacity similar to the additional elements in Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the claim(s) do nothing to improve how the home maintenance system and/or sensors function.
Also, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). In that case, the court provided "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). The court also stated "[T]he only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 13. In this case, there is no improvement to the machine learning tool, merely providing an ML tool to be used in a determining maintenance schedules for household appliances is not enough to be considered significantly more.
Also, the court in, Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025), stated “[t]he requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement” because “[i|terative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning.” Id. at 1212. Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply it,” to the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 3-4, 8-11, 16-17, and 19: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 4, 8-11, 17, and 19, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 : The additional limitation of “receiving,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim(s) 1 and 14. The microphone is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “wherein the plurality of sensor information includes noise information received at the first location and related to one or more items of the plurality of items,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely receiving, noise information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 2 and 15 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 : The additional limitation is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim(s) 1 and 14. The one or more intelligent devices and home wireless network are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 5 and 18 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 : The additional limitation is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim(s) 1 and 14. The one or more intelligent devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “wherein the plurality of sensor information includes information about one or more items of the plurality of items,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 6 and 18 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 : The additional limitation of “identify,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim(s) 1 and 14. The one or more processors is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “identify a plurality of items at or near a home located at the first location, wherein the plurality of sensor information includes operational data of the plurality of items,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely identifying, item information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 7 and 18 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 : The additional limitation of “generating,” and “training,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim 1. The one or more processors, a trained model, and a ML tool, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “generate a model using a plurality of historical data, a plurality of operational data of a plurality of related items, a plurality of historical maintenance data of the plurality of related items, and a plurality of historical performance data of the plurality of related items,” and “train the model to identify operational trends for items,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely identifying and training, item information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Also, "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 12 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 : The additional limitation of “executing,” and “adjusting,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim 1. The one or more processors and a ML tool are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “wherein the received plurality of new electronic data includes first operational data for the first item,” “programmed to execute the model with the first operational data for the first item to determine the condition of the first item and to adjust the maintenance schedule for the one or more maintenance tasks,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely executing and adjusting, item maintenance schedules which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Also, see "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 13 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-19, above do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which,
do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al. (US 2024/0013161). Hu et al. teaches a server can receive a request for appliance-specific repair instructions from an appliance. The server can provide the repair instructions to a user, which will guide the user to perform removal of a component in the appliance and installation of the new component to replace the removed component. However, Hu et al., doesn’t explicitly teach executing using a machine learning tool on identified sensor data to determine an initial maintenance schedule of the first item and one or more recurring maintenance tasks included as a part of the initial maintenance schedule for the first item. Hu et al., also, doesn’t, explicitly teach using the machine learning model to determine if the amount of usage of the first item during a designated time period is consistent with a usage pattern associated with an initial maintenance schedule. If its determined that the amount of usage is not consistent with the usage pattern, adjusting the initial maintenance schedule and generating a notification of the recurring maintenance task in accordance with the adjusted maintenance schedule at an earlier time than is recommended in accordance with the initial maintenance schedule.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights