DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 are presented for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory category, (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matters).
Claim 1-10 are system claims and claims 11-14 and 16-19 are system claims and Claim 20 is an apparatus. All claims are statutory categories under § 101.
Is the claim directed to an abstract idea?
Claim 1 directed to analyzing information to trigger a response. Because the claim uses broad terms like “social media activities”, “user activities” which are directed to organizing human activities or a mental process that simply outsourced to a computer. All these falls within abstract ideas.
Step 2A prong one: abstract idea? (judicial exceptions)
Does the claim recite abstract idea?
YES!
Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of automated behavior prediction and event response. Specifically, the claims are directed to a mathematical or mental process of: collecting data, gathering disparate input (sensor, social media, calendar), analyzing data, using a neural network to predict human behavior (a mental process), and executing an action, triggering a generic device based on that prediction. The claim recites: receiving sensor data, a user behavior in response to the motion event, and a motion event, and based on the predicted user behavior, determining an action. These steps describe the collection and analysis of information, which are functions that can be performed in the human mind. The use of “user preference, purchase history, a calendar, a daily pattern, contact information, and social media activities” represents the type of information humans habitually use to predict how someone might react to a visitor or delivery. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A prong two: Does the abstract idea claims addition elements that integrate into a practical application?
NO!
The claim recites generic components. The claim recites a “memory” and “processors” to perform the operations. These are recited at the high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions. While the claims utilizing a “neural network” which is a mathematical algorithm and AI models, when used for data analysis without a specific technical improvement to the computer itself, remain abstract. The “automatically activating” step is a field of use limitation that describes a result (performing an action) rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem in home automation. There is no improvement to a memory, processors and/or neural network and no new hardware architecture, no transformation of matter and no particular machine requirement beyond generic computing. The computing components merely perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive concept: Is there additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additional elements:
The claim fails to provide an “inventive concept” that is “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Routine activity: Sensors, processors, and automated trigger are well understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing. Combining social media data with a sensor data is merely the gathering of additional data for an abstract prediction, which does not constitute an inventive concept. The claim simply says take an abstract prediction and do it on a computer devise, which is insufficient for eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they directed to an abstract idea. The claims are directed to using a computer to automate a human decision making process. To overcome the 101, examiner suggests applicant must shift the narrative so the claims are directed to “a specific hardware and software threat detection that reduces false positive triggers in smart home security systems” and a physical action output based on the processes and operations of the claim.
Examiner’s remark
4. The indicated allowability of claims in previous office action has been withdrawn in view of the c. Rejections based on the newly current USC 101 issue as shown below. Delay in prosecution regretted. As to claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 there is no prior art to reject claims. However, applicant should resolve the USC 101 rejection to place the application in condition for allowance. An update search needs to be performed after the next response from applicant.
Citation of pertinent Prior Arts
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
6. If the claimed invention is amended, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification, which dictate(s) the structure/description relied upon to assist the Examiner in proper interpretation of the amended language and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fekadeselassie Girma whose telephone number is (571) 270-5886. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday, 8:30 – 5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W. Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fekadeselassie Girma/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2689