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 action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 17 January 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites in part “…based upon the category of the insurance claim…”. Claim 6 recites in part “wherein the category is a first category…”. While this is normally acceptable the claim(s) depend from Claim 1 which recites “…wherein the insurance claim data includes (i) a monetary amount of the insurance claim, and/or (ii) a category of the insurance claim;” which recites elements in the alternative. Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are indefinite with respect to Claim 1, as they are dependent on one or more elements being included that do not need to be included. It is indefinite as to the purpose of these element(s) of the claim(s) as they may never be required if the alternatives are included instead. If applicant intends to require only at least one of the elements then they are recommended to amend the child claim(s) to positively recite choosing or including the specific element(s). If the applicant intends to require all of the elements examiner recommends they amend the parent claim to positively recite requiring all the elements. Examiner will interpret the claim(s) as the former for the purposes of examination.
Claim 10 recites further detail of the fire protection attributes, weather hazard attributes, and crime attributes. While this is normally acceptable the claim(s) depend from Claim 9 which recites “…wherein the method further includes determining, via the one or more processors, the safety subscore based upon: fire protection attributes, weather hazard attributes, and/or crime attributes” which recites elements in the alternative. Claim(s) 10 is/are indefinite with respect to Claim 9, as they are dependent on one or more elements being included that do not need to be included. It is indefinite as to the purpose of these element(s) of the claim(s) as they may never be required if the alternatives are included instead. If applicant intends to require only at least one of the elements then they are recommended to amend the child claim(s) to positively recite choosing or including the specific element(s). If the applicant intends to require all of the elements examiner recommends they amend the parent claim to positively recite requiring all the elements. Examiner will interpret the claim(s) as the former for the purposes of examination.
Claim 4 further narrows the claim based on the monetary amount of the received insurance claim. While this is normally acceptable the claim depends from Claim 1 which recites “…wherein the insurance claim data includes (i) a monetary amount of the insurance claim, and/or (ii) a category of the insurance claim;” which recites elements in the alternative. Claim 4 is indefinite with respect to Claim 1 as it is dependent on one or more elements being included that do not need to be included. It is indefinite as to the purpose of these element(s) of the claim(s) as they may never be required if the alternatives are included instead. If applicant intends to require only at least one of the elements then they are recommended to amend the child claim(s) to positively recite choosing or including the specific element(s). If the applicant intends to require all of the elements examiner recommends they amend the parent claim to positively recite requiring all the elements. Examiner will interpret the claim(s) as the former for the purposes of examination.
Any remaining claims not expounded upon are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
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 claims recites a method, device, and system for home scores determined from claims data. These are a process and two machines which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 16 and 19:
Claim(s) 1, 16 and 19:
“generating,…, an overall home score for a subject property;”
“receiving,…, insurance claim data for an insurance claim corresponding to the subject property, wherein the insurance claim data includes (i) a monetary amount of the insurance claim, and/or (ii) a category of the insurance claim;”
“modifying,…, the overall home score based upon the insurance claim data;”
“displaying,…, the overall home score.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented”, “via one or more processors”, “a computer device”, “one or more processors” or “one or more non-transitory memories, the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Insurance. Insurance is described when generating, modifying, displaying, and collecting information for a home score. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 1:
“…via one or more processors…”
Claim 16:
“a computer device… the computer device comprising one or more processors configured to:”
Claim 19:
“one or more processors;”
“one or more non-transitory memories, the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:”
The computer components (processors, device, and non-transitory memories) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic processors, a generic device, and generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Accordingly, 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 independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims 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 elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates 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.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 1:
“…via one or more processors…”
Claim 16:
“a computer device… the computer device comprising one or more processors configured to:”
Claim 19:
“one or more processors;”
“one or more non-transitory memories, the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. There are no elements in the independent claims which are considered as adding insignificant extra solution activity.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-15, 17-18, and 20 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Claims 14-15 further recite additional elements including recitation of machine learning and training of machine learning algorithms. The use of machine learning and machine learning training is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
The claims 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 elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates 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.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 14:
“training a safety subscore machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the safety subscore machine learning algorithm,…”
“…machine learning…”
Claim 15:
“training a structural subscore machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the structural subscore machine learning algorithm,…”
“…machine learning…”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. There are no elements in the independent claims which are considered as adding insignificant extra solution activity.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hedges et al. (US 2022/0405856 hereinafter Hedges).
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method for improved determination and display of a home score based upon insurance claim data, the method comprising:
generating, via one or more processors, an overall home score for a subject property; (Hedges discloses an overall risk score for a house. See at least paragraphs [0014] and [0081]. Hedges discloses embodying the invention with one or more processors. See at least paragraph [0123].)
receiving, via the one or more processors, insurance claim data for an insurance claim corresponding to the subject property, wherein the insurance claim data includes (i) a monetary amount of the insurance claim, and/or (ii) a category of the insurance claim; (Hedges discloses accessing (i.e. receiving) insurance claim data from data sources for a property. See at least paragraph [0033]. Hedges discloses the method can be performed for a single property (i.e. corresponding to the subject property). See at least paragraph [0032]. Hedges discloses model can be trained on claim loss amount and claim type. See at least paragraph [0102]. Hedges discloses embodying the invention with one or more processors. See at least paragraph [0123].)
modifying, via the one or more processors, the overall home score based upon the insurance claim data; and (Hedges discloses accessing (i.e. receiving) insurance claim data from data sources for a property. See at least paragraph [0033]. Hedges discloses attributes can be determined when new data is received. See at least paragraph [0039]. Hedges discloses overall risk score can be adjusted based on property attribute values (i.e. modified). See at least paragraphs [0020] and [0080]. Hedges discloses embodying the invention with one or more processors. See at least paragraph [0123].)
displaying, via the one or more processors, the overall home score. (Hedges discloses hazard score output and any of the data may be shown to a user. See at least paragraphs [0118]-[0119]. Hedges discloses embodying the invention with one or more processors. See at least paragraph [0123].)
Claim 2
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further including:
prior to the modifying the overall home score, modifying, via the one or more processors, a subscore of the overall home score based upon the insurance claim data; (Hedges discloses attributes can be determined (i.e. subscores) when new data is received. See at least paragraph [0039]. Hedges discloses overall risk score can be based on an adjusting a previously determined attribute value (i.e. modified after new attribute data subscore is received and altered). See at least paragraphs [0020], [0062] and [0080].)
wherein the modifying the overall home score includes modifying the overall home score based upon the modified subscore. (Hedges discloses overall risk score can be based on an adjusting a previously determined attribute value (i.e. modified after new attribute data subscore is received and altered). See at least paragraphs [0020], [0062] and [0080].)
Claim 3
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the modifying includes modifying the overall home score based upon the category of the insurance claim, and wherein the category is at least one of: (Hedges discloses inputs may be severity of prior hazard events including hazard types (i.e. category of insurance claim) e.g., hail size, wind speeds, wildfire boundary, fire damage severity, flood magnitude, etc. See at least paragraph [0074])
a fire damage category; (Hedges discloses inputs may be “severity of prior hazard events (e.g., hail size, wind speeds, wildfire boundary, fire damage severity, flood magnitude, etc.)” See at least paragraph [0074]. Examiner notes relevant category is added emphasis.)
a water damage category; (Hedges discloses inputs may be “severity of prior hazard events (e.g., hail size, wind speeds, wildfire boundary, fire damage severity, flood magnitude, etc.)” See at least paragraph [0074]. Examiner notes relevant category is added emphasis.)
an ice damage category; (Hedges discloses inputs may be “severity of prior hazard events (e.g., hail size, wind speeds, wildfire boundary, fire damage severity, flood magnitude, etc.)” See at least paragraph [0074]. Examiner notes relevant category is added emphasis. Examiner further notes that the BRI of ice damage includes hail damage.)
a hail damage category; (Hedges discloses inputs may be “severity of prior hazard events (e.g., hail size, wind speeds, wildfire boundary, fire damage severity, flood magnitude, etc.)” See at least paragraph [0074]. Examiner notes relevant category is added emphasis.)
a wind damage category; (Hedges discloses inputs may be “severity of prior hazard events (e.g., hail size, wind speeds, wildfire boundary, fire damage severity, flood magnitude, etc.)” See at least paragraph [0074]. Examiner notes relevant category is added emphasis.)
a crime category; (Examiner notes the claim elements are recited in the alternative.)
a total loss category; and/or (Hedges discloses attributes may be correlated to loss severity. See at least paragraph [0067]. Examiner notes correlating to loss severity is equivalent function to total loss category.)
a personal liability category. (Examiner notes the claim elements are recited in the alternative.)
Claim 4
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the modifying the overall home score includes modifying, via the one or more processors, the overall home score proportionally to the monetary amount of the insurance claim. (Hedges discloses model can be trained using claim loss amount (i.e. proportional to the monetary amount). See at least paragraph [0102].)
Claim 9
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating includes generating the overall home score based upon a safety subscore of the subject property, and wherein the method further includes determining, via the one or more processors, the safety subscore based upon: fire protection attributes, weather hazard attributes, and/or crime attributes. (Hedges discloses determining a hazard exposure risk or vulnerability score (i.e. safety subscore). See at least paragraphs [0017] and [0025]. Hedges discloses overall risk score may be conditional on hazard exposure and predicted based on another hazard score or any other suitable information. See at least paragraph [0081]. Hedges discloses hazard inputs including fire station locations (i.e. fire protection attributes) and weather hazard data (i.e. weather hazard attributes). See at least paragraph [0074].)
Claim 11
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating includes generating the overall home score based upon a structural subscore of the subject property, and wherein the method further includes determining, via the one or more processors, the structural subscore based upon: a structural grade, and/or a home age. (Hedges discloses attributes including structural attributes and property-specific risk score including built year (i.e. home age), material, and roof geometry. See at least paragraphs [0016] and [0024]. Hedges discloses binning hazard scores based on claim severity (i.e. grading). See at least paragraph [0077].)
Claim 12
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating includes generating the overall home score based upon a plumbing subscore of the subject property, and wherein the method further includes determining, via the one or more processors, the plumbing subscore based upon: a plumbing grade, and/or a date of a most recent plumbing inspection. (Hedges discloses determining a property-specific risk score. See at least paragraph [0024]. Hedges discloses condition-related attributes can include pool condition (i.e. plumbing subscore). See at least paragraph [0056]. Hedges discloses binning hazard scores based on claim severity (i.e. grading). See at least paragraph [0077].)
Claim 13
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating includes generating the overall home score based upon an appliances subscore of the subject property, and wherein the method further includes determining, via the one or more processors, the appliances subscore based upon: an energy grade, an appliances maintenance grade, and/or a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) attribute. (Hedges discloses determining a property-specific risk score. See at least paragraph [0024]. Hedges discloses determining property components including HVAC systems. See at least paragraph [0035]. Hedges discloses determining energy/gas usage as a condition-related attribute. See at least paragraph [0056]. Hedges discloses binning hazard scores based on claim severity (i.e. grading). See at least paragraph [0077].)
Claim 14
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating includes generating the overall home score based upon a safety subscore of the subject property, and the method further includes: (Hedges discloses determining a hazard exposure risk or vulnerability score (i.e. safety subscore). See at least paragraphs [0017] and [0025].)
training a safety subscore machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the safety subscore machine learning algorithm, the historical information including: (i) independent variables comprising (a) historical fire protection attributes, (b) historical weather hazard attributes, (c) historical crime attributes, and/or (d) historical insurance claim data; and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical safety subscores; and (Hedges discloses determining a hazard exposure risk or vulnerability score (i.e. safety subscore). See at least paragraphs [0017] and [0025]. Hedges discloses training a deep learning or machine learning model for their models. See at least paragraphs [0062] and [0067]. Hedges discloses training the risk model based on historical insurance claim data. See at least paragraph [0019]. Hedges discloses training based on historical wildfire damage (i.e. historical weather hazard attribute). See at least paragraph [0102].)
determining the safety subscore by routing information of properties into the trained safety subscore machine learning algorithm. (Hedges discloses determining a hazard exposure risk or vulnerability score (i.e. safety subscore). See at least paragraphs [0017] and [0025]. Hedges discloses training a deep learning or machine learning model. See at least paragraphs [0062] and [0067]. Hedges discloses inputting a set of properties into the hazard model to obtain output. See at least paragraph [0077].)
Claim 15
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating includes generating the overall home score based upon a structural subscore of the subject property, and the method further includes: (Hedges discloses attributes including structural attributes and property-specific risk score including built year (i.e. home age), material, and roof geometry. See at least paragraphs [0016] and [0024].)
training a structural subscore machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the structural subscore machine learning algorithm, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables including: (a) historical structural grades, (b) historical home ages, and/or (c) historical insurance claim data; and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical structural subscores; (Hedges discloses training deep learning or machine learning models for their models. See at least paragraphs [0062] and [0067]. Hedges discloses risk model can be trained on historical insurance claim data. See at least paragraph [0019].)
determining the structural subscore by routing information of properties into the trained structural subscore machine learning algorithm. (Hedges discloses attributes including structural attributes and property-specific risk score including built year (i.e. home age), material, and roof geometry. See at least paragraphs [0016] and [0024]. Hedges discloses training a deep learning or machine learning model. See at least paragraphs [0062] and [0067]. Hedges discloses inputting a set of properties into the hazard model to obtain output. See at least paragraph [0077].)
Claim 16
A computer device for improved determination and display of a home score based upon insurance claim data, the computer device comprising one or more processors configured to: (Hedges discloses a computer device for embodying the invention. See at least paragraph [0123].)
…
The remainder of Claim 16 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 19
A computer system for improved determination and display of a home score based upon insurance claim data, the computer system comprising: (Hedges discloses a computer device comprising processors for embodying the invention. See at least paragraph [0123].)
one or more processors; and (Hedges discloses a computer device comprising processors for embodying the invention. See at least paragraph [0123].)
receive insurance claim data for an insurance claim corresponding to the subject property, wherein the insurance claim data includes (i) a monetary amount of the insurance claim, and/or (ii) a category of the insurance claim; (Hedges discloses accessing (i.e. receiving) insurance claim data from data sources for a property. See at least paragraph [0033]. Hedges discloses the method can be performed for a single property (i.e. corresponding to the subject property). See at least paragraph [0032]. Hedges discloses model can be trained on claim loss amount and claim type. See at least paragraph [0102]. Hedges discloses embodying the invention with one or more processors. See at least paragraph [0123].)
…
The remainder of Claim 19 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedges et al. (US 2022/0405856 hereinafter Hedges).
Claim 5
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further including:
determining, via the one or more processors, that the subject property has not had an additional insurance claim filed within a predetermined time period; and (Hedges discloses determining whether or not a claim was submitted for a property within a given time period. See at least paragraph [0072].)
in response to the determination that the subject property has not had the additional insurance claim filed within the predetermined time period, increasing, via the one or more processors, the overall home score by a predetermined amount. (Hedges discloses determining whether or not a claim was submitted for a property within a given time period as a key metric for a score, wherein the key metric can affect the score. See at least paragraphs [0072] and [0081]. Although Hedges does disclose the above, they might not explicitly disclose the score increasing when there is an absence of filed claims in the predetermined period.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to positively affect a safety score (i.e. equivalently lower a risk score) when there are no claim filing in a predetermined period because there are a finite number of ways to correlate these variables (i.e. up/down, up/up, down/down and down/up or stay the same) and only one financially logical choice (the claimed choice) in the context of insurance if the score is changing. Ergo, it would be obvious to employ the one financially logical choice as being obvious to try the one logical choice. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).)
Claim 7
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the insurance claim data includes data for a plurality of insurance claims, and the insurance claim is included in the plurality of insurance claims; and (Hedges discloses multiple insurance claim data sources and multiple claims. See at least paragraphs [0033] and [0068]. Hedges discloses the method may be for a single property (i.e. the insurance claim is included in the plurality of insurance claims). See at least paragraph [0032].)
the method further includes:
determining, via the one or more processors, insurance claims of the plurality of insurance claims within a predetermined time period; (Hedges discloses determining whether or not a claim was submitted for a property within a given time period. See at least paragraph [0072]. Hedges does not explicitly disclose determining if multiple claims are within a time period.)
modifying, via the one or more processors, the overall home score based upon data of the insurance claims determined to be within the predetermined time period; and (Hedges discloses determining whether or not a claim was submitted for a property within a given time period as a key metric for a score, wherein the key metric can affect the score. See at least paragraphs [0072] and [0081]. Hedges does not explicitly disclose determining if multiple claims are within a time period.)
not modifying, via the one or more processors, the overall home score based upon data of the insurance claims determined not to be within the predetermined time period. (Hedges discloses determining whether or not a claim was submitted for a property within a given time period as a key metric for a score, wherein the key metric can affect the score (i.e. since it can affect the score it does not have to affect the score). See at least paragraphs [0072] and [0081])
Although Hedges does not explicitly disclose determining if multiple claims are within a time period. It would be obvious to duplicate their step to determine if multiple claims fall within a predetermined time period since Hedges also discloses collecting information from multiple insurance claims (See at least paragraphs [0033] and [0068]) and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 8
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the insurance claim data includes data for a plurality of insurance claims, and the insurance claim is included in the plurality of insurance claims; and (Hedges discloses multiple insurance claim data sources and multiple claims. See at least paragraphs [0033] and [0068]. Hedges discloses the method may be for a single property (i.e. the insurance claim is included in the plurality of insurance claims). See at least paragraph [0032].)
the method further includes:
receiving, via the one or more processors, a seasonal predetermined time period, and a seasonal category; (Hedges discloses determining temporary attributed including seasonal attributes (i.e. seasonal predetermined time period) such as snow aggregation (i.e. seasonal category). See at least paragraphs [0053] and [0066].)
determining, via the one or more processors, that no insurance claims of the plurality of insurance claims were: (i) placed within the seasonal predetermined time period, and/or (ii) have a same category as the seasonal category; and (Hedges discloses determining whether or not a claim was submitted for a property within a given time period. See at least paragraph [0072].)
in response to the determination that no insurance claims of the plurality of insurance claims were: (i) placed within the seasonal predetermined time period, and/or (ii) have the same category as the seasonal category, increasing, via the one or more processors, the overall home score. (Hedges discloses determining whether or not a claim was submitted for a property within a given time period as a key metric for a score, wherein the key metric can affect the score. See at least paragraphs [0072] and [0081]. Although Hedges does disclose the above, they might not explicitly disclose the score increasing when there is an absence of filed claims in the predetermined period.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to positively affect a safety score (i.e. equivalently lower a risk score) when there are no claim filing in a predetermined period because there are a finite number of ways to correlate these variables (i.e. up/down, up/up, down/down and down/up or stay the same) and only one financially logical choice (the claimed choice) in the context of insurance if the score is changing. Ergo, it would be obvious to employ the one financially logical choice as being obvious to try the one logical choice. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedges et al. (US 2022/0405856 hereinafter Hedges) in view of Saha et al. (US 2021/0073692 A1 hereinafter Saha).
Claim 6
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the category is a first category, and the method further includes:
determining, via the one or more processors, a second category based upon a geographic area of the subject property; (Hedges discloses property attributes can include vegetation information or zoning information (i.e. category based upon a geographic area of the subject property). See at least paragraphs [0049], [0053] and [0056].)
determining, via the one or more processors, that the first category matches the second category; and (Hedges discloses determining if multiple geographic regions share or do not share environmental commonalities. See at least paragraph [0098].)
in response to the determining that the first category matches the second category, further modifying, via the one or more processors, the overall home score. (Although Hedges does disclose modifying a home score based on risk, and does disclose determining if multiple geographic regions share or do not share environmental commonalities. They might not explicitly disclose using said determining as a risk metric for modifying their risk score. Saha teaches a vegetation detection sensor system where sensors monitor current state of vegetation proximity and analyze said data alongside historic vegetation data as risk alert data. See at least paragraphs [0011], [0060], [0090] and [0123].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use vegetation sensor data as risk alert metrics as taught by Saha for risk metrics in Hedges because Saha additionally teaches the motivation that vegetation growth and wind effects poses risk to utility infrastructure. See at least paragraphs [0007] and [0123]).
Also, using vegetation sensor data as risk alert metrics as taught by Saha for risk metrics in Hedges is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedges et al. (US 2022/0405856 hereinafter Hedges) in view of Carbery et al. (US 11,216,887 B1 hereinafter Carbery).
Claim 10
The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein:
the fire protection attributes include a grade based upon a distance from a property to water and/or a distance from the property to a fire station; (Hedges discloses hazard inputs including fire station locations (i.e. fire protection attributes) and weather hazard data (i.e. weather hazard attributes). See at least paragraph [0074]. Hedges discloses binning hazard scores based on claim severity (i.e. grading). See at least paragraph [0077].)
the weather hazard attributes include: an earthquake grade, a wind grade, a hail grade, a tornado grade, a lightning grade, a flood grade, a wildfire grade, a drought grade, a tsunami grade, a hurricane grade, a volcano grade, a wind born debris grade, a costal storm surge grade, and/or a convection storm grade; and (Hedges discloses hazard inputs including fire station locations (i.e. fire protection attributes) and weather hazard data (i.e. weather hazard attributes). See at least paragraph [0074]. Hedges discloses hazard score may be associated with wildfire, flood, hail, wind or tornados. See at least paragraph [0014]. Hedges discloses binning hazard scores based on claim severity (i.e. grading). See at least paragraph [0077].)
the crime attributes include (i) a burglary grade based upon a burglary likelihood, and/or (ii) a motor vehicle theft grade based upon a motor vehicle theft likelihood. (Hedges discloses binning hazard scores based on claim severity (i.e. grading). See at least paragraph [0077]. Hedges does not disclose crime attributes.)
Although Hedges does not disclose crime attributes, Carbery discloses determining likelihood of burglary. See at least column 8, lines 54-60 and column 9, lines 12-35.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include likelihood of burglary as taught by Carbery in the system of Hedges because Carbery additionally teaches the motivation that crime statistics influence insurance requirements. See at least column 8, lines 54-60 and column 9, lines 12-35.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedges et al. (US 2022/0405856 hereinafter Hedges) in view of Buehrle et al. (US 12,073,477 B1 hereinafter Buehrle).
Claim 17
The computer device of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
present one or more insights to a user corresponding to the subject property; and (Hedges does not disclose insights.)
if an indication received from the user indicates that at least one insight of the one or more insights has been completed, update the overall home score for the subject property. (Hedges does not disclose insights.)
Although Hedges does disclose a display they might not explicitly disclose the features of Claim 17. Buehrle teaches a user being recommended a maintenance procedure including fixing a broken pipe, that if completed within a period would reduce a risk factor (i.e. update the overall home score) associated with their smart hope. See at least column 5, lines 11-34.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to including the maintenance procedures of Buehrle in the system of Hedges because Hedges additionally teaches the motivation that the disclosed systems and methods may analyze home activity and subsequently provide accurate warnings, notifications, and other information related to a risk associated with the smart home to a user. See at least column 5, lines 11-34.
Also, including the maintenance procedures of Buehrle in the system of Hedges is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18
The computer device of claim 17, wherein the one or more insights include:
replacing a smoke detector battery; (This limitation is recited in the alternative.)
installing a support beam; (This limitation is recited in the alternative.)
replacing at least one pipe; (See the combination with Buehrle for fixing a broken pipe.)
replacing an air filter; and/or (This limitation is recited in the alternative.)
installing a water sensor. (This limitation is recited in the alternative.)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedges et al. (US 2022/0405856 hereinafter Hedges) in view of Buehrle et al. (US 12,073,477 B1 hereinafter Buehrle) further in view of Lekas (US 2023/0252576 A1 hereinafter Lekas).
Claim 20
The computer system of claim 19, the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Hedges discloses non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executed by a processor. See at least paragraph [0123].)
present one or more insights to a user corresponding to the subject property; (This limitation is taught by the combination with Buehrle as shown above in Claim 17.)
if an indication received from the user indicates that at least one insight of the one or more insights has been completed, request, from the user, imagery data associated with the at least one insight; (Buehrle teaches collecting an indication form the user that the maintenance has been completed as shown above in Claim 17. The combination of Hedges/Buehrle does not disclose imagery data.)
receive the imagery data from the user; (The combination of Hedges/Buehrle does not disclose imagery data.)
verify that the at least one insight has been completed based upon the imagery data; and (Buehrle teaches collecting an indication form the user that the maintenance has been completed as shown above in Claim 17. The combination of Hedges/Buehrle does not disclose imagery data.)
in response to the verification, update the overall home score for the subject property. (This limitation is taught by the combination with Buehrle as shown above in Claim 17.)
Although the combination of the combination of Hedges/Buehrle does not disclose imagery data. Lekas teaches using cameras and images to verify the condition of an building. See at least paragraph [0036].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include verifying condition using imagery data as taught by Lekas in the combined system of Hedges/Buehrle because Lekas additionally teaches the motivation that The information may be used in supplementing or verifying information regarding the insurable area to make an insurance decision (e.g., value or condition decisions). See at least paragraph [0036].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Geng et al. (“Evaluation of Smart Home Systems and Novel UV-Oriented Solution for Integration, Resilience, Inclusiveness & Sustainability”) discloses smart home data acquisition for insurance.
Rix et al. (WO 2023/275181 A1) discloses determining risk measurement of livening individuals including property.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights