CTNF 19/027,340 CTNF 93451 DETAILED ACTION Status of the Application 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. The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to claims filed on January 17, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 16, and 19 recite “internal data of a subject property” (bold emphasis included) should read “internal data of the subject property” for maintaining proper antecedent basis. Claims 8 and 13 recite “the appliance subscore” should read “the appliances subscore”. Claim 9 recites “wherein plurality of attributes” should read “wherein the plurality of attributes” for maintaining proper antecedent basis. Claim 9 recites “hazard attribute (v) an internal” should read “hazard attribute, (v) an internal” comma is missing. Claim 10 recites “a distance from a property” should read “a distance from the subject property” for maintaining proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 recites “wind born” and “costal” should read “wind-borne” and “coastal”. Claim 11 recites “internal structural grades”, “external structural grades”, and “home ages” these are plural which should be singular “internal structural grade”, “external structural grade”, and “home age” because the claim is evaluating a single subject property. Claim 12 recites “dates of a most recent plumbing inspections” should be singular: “a date of a most recent plumbing inspection”. Claims 14 and 15 recite “routing information of properties into…” should read “routing information of the subject property into…” because the claim is determining the score for the subject property. Claims 2-15, 17-18, and 20 depend from claims 1, 16, and 19 above and therefore inherit the claim objection deficiencies of their parent claim . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 5-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 5 and 8 recite “ any of : (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliances subscore” (bold emphasis included), which is found to be indefinite. Claim 1 only requires generating “one or more of” these subscores. If only a safety subscore is generated, applying a reduction to “any of” the four subscores could refer to a subscore that does not exist. Therefore, for the purpose of expediting compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret “ any of : (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliances subscore” (bold emphasis included), to be -- the generated one or more of : (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliances subscore-- (bold emphasis included). Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim. 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. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03) In the present application, claims 1-15 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 16-18 are directed to a device (i.e., a machine), and claims 19-20 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one. Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04) While claims 1, 16, and 19, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below. The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 16, and 19, is receive a plurality of attributes of a subject property, wherein the plurality of attributes were determined based upon internal data of a subject property and external data of the subject property; generate, based upon the plurality of attributes, for the subject property, one or more of: (i) a safety subscore, (ii) a structural subscore, (iii) a plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) an appliances subscore; generate an overall home score for the subject property based upon the one or more of: (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliances subscore; and display the overall home score and/or the one or more of: (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliances subscore. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining a home score . Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (step [A]), analyzing the information (steps [B] and [C]), and presenting the result (step [D]). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, the same claim limitations above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of home assessment for risk evaluation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the limitations recite a process of collecting information of a home to evaluate or determine risk based of the home, which traditionally performed by a home inspector or insurance company, as discussed in the applicant’s specification paragraph [0003]. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in commercial interaction for a business practice of providing a service of risk assessment, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Lastly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations generating a score based on weighted attribute (limitations [B] and [C]) amounts to performing mathematical calculations, which falls under “Mathematical Concept” category of the abstract ideas. Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two. Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. The additional elements considered include: Claim 1: “computer-implemented… and display”, “via one or more processors,” Claim 16: “computer device … and display…., the computer device comprising one or more processors configured to”; and “on a display,” Claim 15: “computer system… and display”; “the computer system comprising: one or more processors; and 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:” “on a display,” In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to receive, generate, and display information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0025], [0031], [0149]-[0155]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. That is, the function of limitations [A]-[D] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) . The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[D] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) . The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for determining a home score . Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible. As for dependent claims 2-15, 17, 18, and 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims 1, 16, and 19. The dependent claims further recite additional abstract steps and description of receiving, classifying, determining, training, and generating information, which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible. In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Bentley (US 20190251520 A1) . Claims 1, 16, and 19, Bentley discloses a computer-implemented method, a computer device, and a computer system for improved determination and display of a home score based upon internal data and/or external data (Abstract and para. [0007]), comprising: one or more processors (para. [0038], [0054]) ; and 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 (para. [0038]-[0040], [0054]) : receiving, via one or more processors (para. [0038], [0054]) , a plurality of attributes of a subject property, wherein the plurality of attributes were determined based upon internal data of a subject property and external data of the subject property (para. [0059]-[0060], Bentley discloses receiving data regarding a property’s states and traits. In para. [0099] defines property's traits are its inherent elements like proximity of the property to water, proximity of the property to fire hydrants, proximity of the property to fire or police departments which is external data, as defined in the applicant’s specification [0023], data corresponding to an outside of the structure. Then in para. [0107], Bentley defines states as current condition inside the home, such as existence of smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, auto shut-off valves, an alarm system, or appliance conditions, which constitutes internal data (e.g., data corresponding to an inside of a structure, such as a home, on a property, etc.)) ; generating, via the one or more processors, based upon the plurality of attributes, for the subject property, one or more of: (i) a safety subscore, (ii) a structural subscore, (iii) a plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) an appliances subscore (para. [0133], [0134], and [0138] discloses generating multiple subscores (indices) based on the attributes, such as Home Safety Index (safety subscore) and Home Health Index (internal risks and appliance health)) ; generating, via the one or more processors, an overall home score for the subject property based upon the one or more of: (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliances subscore (Para. [0109]-[0110] and [0133] discloses calculating an overall property fitness score (“B.E.S.T. Metric”) by summing or aggregating the weighted values of the sub-indices/attributes) ; and displaying, via the one or more processors, on a display, the overall home score and/or the one or more of: (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliances subscore (Para. [0062]-[0063] and Fig. 2, Property Fitness Index 210, discloses displaying the Property Fitness Index and sub-fields on a Dashboard graphical user interface presented to the user) . Claim 2, Bentley discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the internal data includes data generated by: a smart device located within a structure of the subject property; and/or a user device of a user who resides in the subject property (para. [0007], [0058] and [0114] of Bentley discloses internal data generated by a smart device located within the structure such as sensors, smoke detectors, and user device. Claim 3, Bentley discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the external data includes data gathered from an outside of a structure of the subject property ([0099] and [0144], Bentley disclose the external data includes data gathered from outside of the structure, such as proximity to fire department or external weather data). Claim 4, Bentley discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the internal data and/or external data includes: imagery data; audio data; sensor data; and/or device type data (para. [0090]-[0091], [0111] and [0113] Bentley discloses the data includes imagery data (uploaded photos), audio data (voice input/smart speakers), sensor data and device type data). Claim 17, Bentley discloses 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 (para. [0063]-[0066] and Fig. 2, Bentley discloses the system provides actionable insights and recommendations (e.g., safety recommendations, maintenance recommendations) that are tailored to the user the property. Specifically in para. [0063] and Fig. 2, list of recommendations 214, Bentley teaches displaying the insight/recommendations on a dashboard) ; and if an indication received from the user indicates that at least one insight of the one or more insights has been completed (para. [0066] discloses after an alert or insight is provided, “system is told that issue has been resolved either automatically through a sensor or manually by the user or someone else with access to the system”) , update the overall home score for the subject property (para. [00118], Bentley discloses after the user resolves the issue, “the property fitness index is updated based upon the new information.” In para. [0007], “reconstructing a new property fitness index of the at least one property using the user data, time data, user behavior value, or combinations thereof; 9) automatically updating the property profile with the new property fitness index;” para. [0145], Bentley further discloses after the user updates profile to reflect the completed tasks, the user “then re-runs the report to review the updated report and recommendations”) . Claim 18, Bentley discloses the computer device of claim 17, wherein the one or more insights include: replacing a smoke detector battery; installing a support beam; replacing at least one pipe; replacing an air filter; and/or installing a water sensor (para. [0104], “checking smoke detector batteries,” and para. [0114], “the battery level of a smoke detector may be tracked by the system in order for the system to know when to notify the user that the battery needs to be replaced.” Disclosing replacing a smoke detector battery. Para. [0114], “replace an air filter every 4 months”). Claim 20, Bentley discloses 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: present one or more insights to a user corresponding to the subject property; if an indication received from the user indicates that at least one insight of the one or more insights has been completed (Para. [0063]-[0067] and [0145] teaching the property owner “completes a sub-set of the recommended task and updates her profile”) , request, from the user, imagery data associated with the at least one insight; receive the imagery data from the user (para. [0090] discloses an interface that allows the user to upload photos of items associated with the property, and photos to assist with maintenance of the property) ; verify that the at least one insight has been completed based upon the imagery data (para. [0091], Bentley discloses utilizing the uploaded imagery data to automatically extract information about the property items. Bentley teaches that “information about items and appliances (e.g., such as brand name, machine type, serial numbers or model numbers) may be automatically extracted from an uploaded photo.” Para. [0145], Bentley discloses extracting data from the uploaded maintenance photos to identify the items and further teaches the user uploads the media to prove/reflect that recent activities including maintenance have been completed. The utilizing image-data extraction to confirm the state of a maintained item constitutes verifying completion based upon the imagery data) ; and in response to the verification, update the overall home score for the subject property (para. [00118], Bentley discloses after the user resolves the issue, “the property fitness index is updated based upon the new information.” In para. [0007], “reconstructing a new property fitness index of the at least one property using the user data, time data, user behavior value, or combinations thereof; 9) automatically updating the property profile with the new property fitness index;” para. [0145], Bentley further discloses after the user updates profile to reflect the completed tasks, the user “then re-runs the report to review the updated report and recommendations”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley (US 20190251520 A1) in view of Conway (US 20170322705 A1) . Claim 5, Bentley discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Bentley discloses the system tracks the states of the property using sensors and subscores (e.g., Home Safety Index, Home Health Index) are dynamic and change based on the states of the property (para. [0112]). However, Bentley fails to explicitly teaches the limitations, classifying, via the one or more processors, based upon the internal data, the subject property as low occupancy; and in response to the classifying the subject property as low occupancy, applying, via the one or more processors, a reduction to any of: (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliances subscore. Conway is in the similar filed of home risk scoring system and method, which specifically teaches, classifying, via the one or more processors, based upon the internal data, the subject property as low occupancy (para. [0056] and [0073], Conway teaches the utilizing of sensor data to determine that no one has been home for several days (low occupancy), which constitutes classifying the subject property as low occupancy based on the internal data (sensor data)) ; and in response to the classifying the subject property as low occupancy, applying, via the one or more processors, a reduction to any of: (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliances subscore (Conway, [0073] teaches the adjusting of property risk score in response to determining the home is unoccupied. That is the system determines from the sensor data that no one has been home for serval days and scored for high risk for a pipe burst, which is equivalent to applying reduction to plumbing subscore or a safety subscore). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the home scoring system and method of Bentley to include the occupancy-based classification and score reduction logic of Conway for the motivation of providing a more accurate, dynamic, and reflective scoring system to assess home risk for homeowner recommendation for repair prevent or mitigate risks (as suggested in Conway, para. [0007]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a home risk assessment field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same home risk assessment related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Hedges for allowing the system to better predict potential damages and offer more accurate insurance pricing and maintenance recommendations, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A). Claim 6, the combination of Bentley and Conway make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 5. Bentley further discloses recommending, to a user, to install a particular smart device (para. [0136] teaches providing recommendation to the user for property improvement including “automatic water shut-off”); determining, via the one or more processors, that the user has installed the particular smart device (Bentley para. [0066] discloses after an alert or recommendation is provided, the system is told that issue has been resolved either automatically through a sensor or manually by the user); and in response to the determining that the user has installed the particular smart device, removing, via the one or more processors, the reduction (Bentley para. [0007] discloses once the user completes the recommended task, the system updates the profile and recalculates the score. Specifically Bentley states “reconstructing a new property fitness index of the at least one property using the user data,… and automatically updating the property profile with the new property fitness index;” In para. [0145] further discloses the “property owner completes a sub-set of the recommended task and updates her profile to reflect the updates and changes. The property owner then re-runs the report to review the updated report and recommendations”). However, Bentley does not expressly teach (italic emphasis), further in response to the classifying the subject property as low occupancy, recommending, to a user, to install a particular smart device. Nonetheless, Conway explicitly teaches, further in response to the classifying the subject property as low occupancy, recommending, to a user, to install a particular smart device (Conway [0073] teaches that in response to determining the high-risk state caused by low occupancy (no one home) and freezing weather, the system generates recommendations or interventions to mitigate the risk. Conway specifically teaches recommending or actuating an automatic waster shutoff value to mitigate the damage of a burst pipe). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Bentley with/and the teachings of Conway are presented in the examining of claim 5 and incorporated herein. Claim 7, the combination of Bentley and Conway make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 6. wherein the particular smart device is a smart water shutoff valve, and the reduction is a reduction to the plumbing subscore (Bentley [0136] teaches providing recommendation to the user for property improvement including “automatic water shut-off”. In Conway para. [0073] teaches the recommending the installation or actuation of a smart water shutoff value to mitigate the risk of a plumbing pipe burst, which constitutes to reduction to plumbing subscore). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Bentley with/and the teachings of Conway are presented in the examining of claim 5 and incorporated herein. Claim 8, Bentley discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Bentley further discloses, determining, via the one or more processors, that a current time is during a predetermined seasonal time period (Bentley, para. [0144], “Season alerts are for changes from one season to the next to notify the user to make seasonal changes to the property, such as to replace window screens with storm windows or to drain the water from outside pipes, so they do not burst in the winter” discloses determining seasonal time periods to generate alerts). However, Bentley does not expressly teach (italic emphasis), classifying, via the one or more processors, based upon the internal data, the subject property as low occupancy; and in response to both (i) the determining that the current time is during the predetermined seasonal time period, and (ii) the classifying the subject property as low occupancy, applying, via the one or more processors, a reduction to any of: (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliance subscore. Nonetheless, Conway specifically teaches, determining, via the one or more processors, that a current time is during a predetermined seasonal time period (para. [0073], Conway teaches determining that the current time is during a specific seasonal weather period, specifically teaching determining that the weather in the area is currently below freezing); classifying, via the one or more processors, based upon the internal data, the subject property as low occupancy (para. [0056] and [0073], Conway teaches the utilizing of sensor data to determine that no one has been home for several days (low occupancy), which constitutes classifying the subject property as low occupancy based on the internal data (sensor data)) ; and in response to both (i) the determining that the current time is during the predetermined seasonal time period, and (ii) the classifying the subject property as low occupancy, applying, via the one or more processors, a reduction to any of: (i) the safety subscore, (ii) the structural subscore, (iii) the plumbing subscore, and/or (iv) the appliance subscore (para. [0073] states “if a home has been scored as high risk for a pipe burst from freezing using the home services risk models, and it is known that the weather in the area is currently below freezing (predetermine seasonal time period), and it is known from sensor data that no one has been home for several days (low occupancy)” teaches adjusting a property risk score in response to the determining that the current time is during the predetermined seasonal time period, and (ii) the classifying the subject property as low occupancy. Under the BRI, scoring a home as high risk for a pipe burst is mathematically and conceptually equivalent to applying a reduction to a plumbing subscore or safety subscore. The both represent a programmatic pentalty applied to the property evaluation due to the compound threat level of freezing weather occurring while a home is empty). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Bentley with/and the teachings of Conway are presented in the examining of claim 5 and incorporated herein . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley (US 20190251520 A1) in view of Hedges (US 20220405856 A1) . Claim 9 , Bentley discloses (italic emphasis) the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the overall home score includes generating the overall home score based upon the safety subscore, and wherein plurality of attributes includes: (i) an internal fire protection attribute, (ii) an external fire protection attribute, (iii) an internal weather hazard attribute, (iv) an external weather hazard attribute, (v) an internal crime attribute, and/or (vi) an external crime attribute (Bentley, para. [0109]-[0110] and [0133], [0138], discloses generating/calculating an overall property fitness score (“B.E.S.T. Metric”) by summing or aggregating the weighted values of the sub-indices/attributes including safety subscore (Home Safety Index). Para. [0098]-[0099], [0104], and [0106], Bentley further discloses evaluating internal fire protection attributes (e.g., checking smoke detectors/fire extinguishers), external fire protection attributes (e.g., proximity to fire departments/hydrants), and internal crime attributes (e.g., alarm systems)). However, Bentley fails to expressly teach, (iii) an internal weather hazard attribute, (iv) an external weather hazard attribute, and/or (vi) an external crime attribute. Hedges is in the similar field of property hazard scoring system and methods, which specifically teaches, (iii) an internal weather hazard attribute, (iv) an external weather hazard attribute, and/or (vi) an external crime attribute (para. [0013]-[0014], [0017], [0047], and [0056], Hedges teaches the calculating hazard/vulnerability scores based on external weather hazard attributes (e.g., wildfire, flood, hail, wind, tornadoes, or other hazards)). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the home scoring system and method of Bentley to include the additional and comprehensive list of structural and weather hazards attributes associating with property for the motivation of providing more accurate risk estimates and eliminates confounding factors (Hedges, para. [0023]-[0024]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a home risk assessment field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same home risk assessment related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Hedges for allowing the system to better predict potential damages and offer more accurate insurance pricing and maintenance recommendations, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A). Claim 11 , Bentley and Hedges make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the overall home score includes generating the overall home score based upon the structural subscore, and wherein the plurality of attributes includes: (i) internal structural grades, (ii) external structural grades, and/or (iii) home ages (Bentley para. [0098], [0138] discloses generating a structural subscore (Home Resilience Index) based on the structure of the property. Hedges para. [0023] and [0053] teaches calculating vulnerability score based on external structural attribute such as roof complexity, roof geometry type, and/or roof area, building height and historical construction information (e.g., year built)). Claim 12 , Bentley and Hedges make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the overall home score includes generating the overall home score based upon the plumbing subscore, and wherein the plurality of attributes includes: (i) internal plumbing grades, (ii) external plumbing grades, and/or (iii) dates of a most recent plumbing inspections . (Bentley [0138] discloses generating health subscore (Home Health Index) based on internal risks. Bentley [0104]-[0105] and [0107] discloses evaluating internal plumbing attributes including the presence of auto shut-off value, braided metal hose on the washer, and performing plumbing safety check). Claim 13 , Bentley and Hedges make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the overall home score includes generating the overall home score based upon the appliance subscore, and wherein the plurality of attributes includes: (i) internal appliances grades, and/or (ii) external appliances grades (Bentley [0138], Home Health Index based on internal risks. In para. [0103]-[0106], internal applicant attributes including having the heating system serviced, cleaning a dryer exhaust vent and evaluating the state of a generator. Hedges [0052], “HVAC parameters” and “solar panel parameters” as external appliances attributes). Claim 14 , Bentley and Hedges make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the overall home score includes generating the overall home score based upon a safety subscore of the subject property, and the method further includes: training a safety subscore machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the safety subscore machine learning algorithm (Bentley para. [0100] and [0138] discloses the generating of overall home scored based on safety subscore (Home Safety Score) using artificial intelligence algorithms to calculate the scores) , However, Bentley does not expressly teach, the historical information including: (i) independent variables comprising (a) internal historical fire protection attributes, (b) external historical fire protection attributes, (c) internal historical weather hazard attributes, (d) external historical weather hazard attributes (e) internal historical crime attributes, and/or (f) external historical crime attributes; and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical safety subscores; and determining the safety subscore by routing information of properties into the trained safety subscore machine learning algorithm. Hedges explicitly teaches, training a safety subscore machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the safety subscore machine learning algorithm (para. [0018]-[0019], and [0095]-[0097] teaches training a machine learning hazard/vulnerability model (i.e., safety risk model) using historical information), the historical information including: (i) independent variables comprising (a) internal historical fire protection attributes, (b) external historical fire protection attributes, (c) internal historical weather hazard attributes, (d) external historical weather hazard attributes (e) internal historical crime attributes, and/or (f) external historical crime attributes; and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical safety subscores (para. [0097], [0100] teaches the machine learning model ingests training inputs (independent variables) associated with each historical training property, wherein the inputs comprise property attribute values and historical weather/hazard data. In para. [0014] and [0056] teaches the attributes include external weather hazards (wildfire, flood, hail, wind, tornadoes,) and external fire protection attributes (proximity to fire stations). In para. [0097] and [0104] teaches training targets (dependent variables) which can include previously determined hazard score (i.e., historical safety subscore)) ; and determining the safety subscore by routing information of properties into the trained safety subscore machine learning algorithm (para. [0079] and [0113] teaches determining hazard/vulnerability score for a subject property by ingesting (routing) the attribute values of the property into the trained hazard model) . The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Bentley with/and the teachings of Hedges are presented in the examining of claim 9 and incorporated herein. Claim 15 , Bentley and Hedges make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generating the overall home score includes generating the overall home score based upon a structural subscore of the subject property, and the method further includes: training a structural subscore machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the structural subscore machine learning algorithm (para. [0138] Bentley discloses generating the overall home score based on a structural subscore (Home Resilience Index). In para. [0100] discloses the use of artificial intelligence algorithm), However, Bentley does not expressly teach, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables including: (a) internal historical structural grades, (b) external historical structural grades, and/or (c) historical home ages; and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical structural subscores; and determining the structural subscore by routing information of properties into the trained structural subscore machine learning algorithm. Hedges explicitly teaches, training a structural subscore machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the structural subscore machine learning algorithm (para. [0018]-[0019], and [0095]-[0097] teaches training a machine learning hazard/vulnerability model (i.e., structural risk model) using historical information), the historical information including: (i) independent variables comprising (a) internal historical fire protection attributes, (b) external historical fire protection attributes, (c) internal historical weather hazard attributes, (d) external historical weather hazard attributes (e) internal historical crime attributes, and/or (f) external historical crime attributes; and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical safety subscores (para. [0023], [0053]-[0054], and [0100] teaches the training input (independent variables) to the machine learning model include historical structural attributes, explicitly disclosing structural attributes such as roof complexity, roof geometry type, and/or roof area (external structural grades) and historical construction information (e.g., year built)); and determining the safety subscore by routing information of properties into the trained safety subscore machine learning algorithm (para. [0079] and [0113] teaches determining hazard/vulnerability score for a subject property by ingesting (routing) the structural attribute values of the property into the trained hazard/vulnerability model) . The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Bentley with/and the teachings of Hedges are presented in the examining of claim 9 and incorporated herein . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley (US 20190251520 A1) in view of Hedges (US 20220405856 A1) and further in view of Yager (US 11783423 B1) . Claim 10 , Bentley and Hedges make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 9. Bentley further discloses, the internal fire protection attribute includes a grade based upon: one or more smoke alarms of a structure of the subject property, a sprinkler system of the structure, and/or a building material of the structure (para. [0099] and [0107] evaluating the existence/state of smoke detectors and the materials of the property); the external fire protection attribute includes a grade based upon a distance from a property to water and/or a distance from the property to a fire station (para. [0099], evaluating the “proximity of the property to water, proximity of the property to fire hydrants, proximity of the property to fire or police departments”) ; the internal crime attribute includes: a security system grade, and/or a security camera grade (para. [0107] evaluating the state of an alarm system) . However, Bentley fails to expressly disclose the internal weather hazard attribute and/or external weather hazard attribute includes: 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; the external crime attribute includes: (i) a burglary grade based upon a burglary likelihood, and/or (ii) a motor vehicle theft grade based upon a motor vehicle theft likelihood . Nonetheless, Hedges further teaches the internal weather hazard attribute and/or external weather hazard attribute includes: 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 (para. [0014], [0047], [0074] teaches generating hazard scores based on external weather hazard attributes including “wildfire, flood, hail, wind, tornadoes, or other hazards) . The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Bentley with/and the teachings of Hedges are presented in the examining of claim 9 and incorporated herein. Still, the combination does not expressly use the language of crime attribute, specifically the limitation, the external crime attribute includes: (i) a burglary grade based upon a burglary likelihood, and/or (ii) a motor vehicle theft grade based upon a motor vehicle theft likelihood . Yager is in the similar field of home risk rating system and method, which specifically teaches, the external crime attribute includes: (i) a burglary grade based upon a burglary likelihood, and/or (ii) a motor vehicle theft grade based upon a motor vehicle theft likelihood (Col. 20 Ln. 7-45 teaches evaluating the crime rate to generate a safety score). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the home scoring system and method of Bentley to include the external/theft attributes for generating score as taught by Yager for the motivation of providing a more robust and comprehensive property scoring system and accurately price insurance risk and recommend security mitigations based on crime rate of the property location. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a home risk assessment field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same home risk assessment related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Hedges for allowing the system to better predict potential damages and offer more accurate insurance pricing and maintenance recommendations, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A). Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known: Hayward (US 20210398227A1) Allen et al. (US 20160104250 A1) B. Qolomany et al ., "Leveraging Machine Learning and Big Data for Smart Buildings: A Comprehensive Survey," in IEEE Access , vol. 7, pp. 90316-90356, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2926642. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM. 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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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. /WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 2 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 3 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 4 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 5 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 6 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 7 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 8 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 9 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 10 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 11 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 12 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 13 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 14 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 15 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 16 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 17 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 18 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 19 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 20 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 21 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 22 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 23 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 24 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 25 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 26 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/027,340 Page 27 Art Unit: 3626
Prosecution Insights