CTNF 18/918,555 CTNF 93612 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed5/20/2026. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11, 13 and 15 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered. Response to Remarks/Arguments In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/20/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant respectfully submits that the features of amended claims 1, 8, and 15 do not fall within "certain methods of organizing human activity," or any of the other groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas. In particular, Applicant respectfully submits that the example features of amended claim are dissimilar from the enumerated categories of "certain" methods of organizing human activity provided in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(II) and/or as recognized judicially, which include "fundamental economic principles or practices," "commercial or legal interactions," and/or "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." Rather, here, amended claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for evaluating aspects of a plumbing system of a residential property, which comprises "predicting, via a trained machine learning model configured to estimate a respective impact of the plurality of plumbing system aspects and the plurality of residential property aspects on a remaining lifespan of the plumbing system, an estimated remaining lifespan of the plumbing system." A method requiring a trained machine learning model that is specifically configured to estimate per-factor impacts of heterogeneous residential data on a remaining lifespan of a physical plumbing system is not a method of "managing interactions between people," it is a specific computational technique for determining individual impact estimates from multi-variable input data… Here, and similar to the example provided on page 3 of the August 2025 Memo, the features of the pending claims may (at most) "involve" or "rely" upon human activity, but do not "set forth or describe" (i.e., "recite") any method of managing "personal behavior" or "interactions between people," as evidenced by the differences between the examples provided in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(II)(C) and the exemplary features of the pending claims... Amended claim 1 recites a "trained machine learning model configured to estimate a respective impact of the plurality of plumbing system aspects and the plurality of residential property aspects on a remaining lifespan of the plumbing system." This is not a generic invocation of machine learning. Rather, the amended claim specifies how the model processes the data: by performing per-factor impact decomposition (i.e., the model is configured to individually estimate the impact of each category of input data (plumbing system aspects and residential property aspects) on the remaining lifespan of a physical plumbing system). This constrains the model's internal processing architecture to a specific computational technique, rather than merely claiming "apply machine learning" to produce a prediction… As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims, when considered as a whole, recite an improvement to a technology or technical field, specifically an improvement in the field of building system/subsystem monitoring and management, which uses a trained machine learning model configured to perform per-factor impact estimation to provide predictions associated with characteristics of the systems/subsystems and recommendations for actions to be implemented to reduce and/or prevent potential damage, inefficient operating conditions, and/or health or safety risks posed by a system/subsystem of a building… Applicant respectfully submits that a method for evaluating aspects of a plumbing system of a residential property by, (i) "receiving, via a plurality of residential records, a plurality of plumbing system aspects and a plurality of residential property aspects," (ii) "predicting, via a trained machine learning model configured to estimate a respective impact of the plurality of plumbing system aspects and the plurality of residential property aspects on a remaining lifespan of the plumbing system, an estimated remaining lifespan of the plumbing system based upon the plurality of plumbing system aspects and the plurality of residential property aspects," (iii) "generating a first notification, the first notification comprising the estimated remaining lifespan of the plumbing system and one or more recommended actions," (iv) "receiving a user input indicating a user has implemented the one or more recommended actions," (v) "generating a lifespan modification factor based upon the one or more recommended actions, wherein the lifespan modification factor is indicative of an effect the one or more recommended actions has on the estimated remaining lifespan of the plumbing system," and (vi) "generating and transmitting, to a user device of the user for display, a second notification comprising an updated estimated remaining lifespan of the plumbing system and one or more additional recommended actions, the updated estimated remaining lifespan being based upon the lifespan modification factor and the estimated remaining lifespan," is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, but rather amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea”, (see remarks , pg. 10-17). Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for evaluating aspects of plumbing system of a residential property, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as individual(s) utilizing a database collecting records from plumbing systems can gather information with respect to the lifespan of plumbing systems compared with parameters affecting the lifespan of the system to propose and implement actions, additionally falls under mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the models can be laid out by pen and paper as a human can perform calculation to present a model for evaluating aspects of a plumbing system and estimate a respective impact of the plumbing system and calculate the remaining lifespan of the plumbing system. The computing elements such as “computer method, processor, memory device, user device, database, machine learning of claim 1; detector device, processors, memories, user device, database, machine learning of claim 8; computer-implemented method, sensor data, sensors, photo data, video data, audio data, smart home data, mobile device data, machine learning model, message, machine learning of claim 15” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, with respect to technological improvement "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Response to Prior Art Arguments Applicant's prior art arguments filed 5/20/2026 are persuasive, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. The claim recites method for evaluating aspects of plumbing system of a residential property. Step 2A – Prong 1 Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “evaluating aspects of a plumbing system of a residential property, method comprising: receiving, via the plurality of residential records, a plurality of plumbing system aspects and a plurality of residential property aspects; predicting to estimate a respective impact of the plurality of plumbing system aspects and the plurality of residential property aspects on a remaining lifespan of the plumbing system, an estimated remaining lifespan of the plumbing system based upon the plurality of plumbing system aspects and the plurality of residential property aspects; generating a notification, the notification comprising the estimated remaining lifespan of the plumbing system and one or more recommended actions; receiving a user input indicating the user has implemented the one or more recommended actions; generating a lifespan modification factor based upon the one or more recommended actions, wherein the lifespan modification factor is indicative of an effect the one or more recommended actions has on the estimated remaining lifespan of the plumbing system; and generating and transmitting, a second notification comprising an updated estimated remaining lifespan of the plumbing system and one or more additional recommended actions, the updated estimated remaining lifespan being based upon the lifespan modification factor and the estimated remaining lifespan” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, additionally falls under mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the models can be laid out by pen and paper as a human can perform calculation to present a model for evaluating aspects of a plumbing system and estimate a respective impact of the plumbing system and calculate the remaining lifespan of the plumbing system. The mere recitation of a generic computer (computer method, processor, memory device, user device, database, machine learning of claim 1; detector device, processors, memories, user device, database, machine learning of claim 8; computer-implemented method, sensor data, sensors, photo data, video data, audio data, smart home data, mobile device data, machine learning model, message, machine learning of claim 15) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (computer method, processor, memory device, user device, database, machine learning of claim 1; detector device, processors, memories, user device, database, machine learning of claim 8; computer-implemented method, sensor data, sensors, photo data, video data, audio data, smart home data, mobile device data, machine learning model, message, machine learning of claim 15). The computer method, processor, memory device, user device, database, machine learning of claim 1; detector device, processors, memories, user device, database, machine learning of claim 8; computer-implemented method, sensor data, sensors, photo data, video data, audio data, smart home data, mobile device data, machine learning model, message, machine learning of claim 15, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the computer-implemented method in claims 2-7 and 17-20; processor in claims 9, 14 and 18; memory device in claim 2; user device in claims 2, 7, 9, 14; detector device in claims 9-14; sensor data in claims 18-19; mobile device in claims 16; message of claim 16; display in claims 7, 14 and 16; voice bot in claims 14; voice assistant in claims 16; home mounted sensors of claim 18, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination , without the use of impermissible hindsight. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 5712725587. 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. /IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 2 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 3 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 4 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 5 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 6 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 7 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 8 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 9 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 10 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/918,555 Page 11 Art Unit: 3626
Prosecution Insights