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 application filed on 6/09/2025.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: in Claim 1, the quotation mark at the end of step (g) requires removal. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…using an automated system…” of Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purposes of this examination, this term will be interpreted in view of Paragraph 0058 as filed.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 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 1 contains the term “the first occupant,” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of this examination, this term will be interpreted as “a first occupant.” Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claim 1.
Claim 1 contains multiple instances of the term “the property,” all of which lack antecedent basis as Claim 1 does not disclose “a property” prior to these instances. For the purposes of this examination, the first instance of “the property” will be interpreted as “a property associated with at least one of the delinquent assessments.” Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claim 1.
Claim 4 contains the following limitation: “wherein the step of changing at least one entry lock to the property comprises changing a code to a mechanical lock.” It is unclear as drafted whether “a code” is intended to relate back to “an electronic lock code” of Claim 2 (upon which Claim 4 depends), and consequently it is unclear if the claimed “changing” of this code is merely a reclaiming of the “updating an electronic lock code” of Claim 2 or whether this “changing” is a separate step related to a separate code. For the purposes of this examination, “a code” is interpreted as “the electronic lock code” and “changing” is interpreted as a reiteration of the “updating” step of Claim 2.
Claim 5 contains the following limitation: “wherein the step of changing at least one entry lock to the property comprises changing a code to an electronic lock.” It is unclear as drafted whether “a code” is intended to relate back to “an electronic lock code” of Claim 2 (upon which Claim 4 depends), and consequently it is unclear if the claimed “changing” of this code is merely a reclaiming of the “updating an electronic lock code” of Claim 2 or whether this “changing” is a separate step related to a separate code. For the purposes of this examination, “a code” is interpreted as “the electronic lock code” and “changing” is interpreted as a reiteration of the “updating” step of Claim 2.
Claim 6 contains the following limitation: “wherein inspecting the property comprises deploying a drone with a camera and environmental sensors to collect data.” It is unclear as drafted whether “a drone” in this limitation is intended to relate back to “a drone” of step (c) of Claim 1 (upon which Claim 1 depends). For the purposes of this examination, and in light of this limitation of Claim 6 explicitly further narrowing step (c) of Claim 1, “a drone” will be interpreted as “the drone.”
Each of Claims 7-9 contain the following language: “wherein the step of preparing the property for use by a second occupant comprises…” This language is indefinite as Claim 1 does not set forth a “step of preparing the property for use by a second occupant” as claimed. This language is additionally indefinite as it is unclear as drafted whether “a second occupant” therein is intended to relate back to “a second occupant” of Claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as “wherein the transforming of the property by executing the rehabilitation plan comprises…” Additionally regarding Claim 7 in particular, when given the above interpretation, Claim 7 fails to specify a further limitation of Claim 1 (upon which it depends) in violation of 37 CFR 112(d) as step (d) of Claim 1 already requires the execution of the rehabilitation plan to include “sanitizing the property.” While Examiner chooses not to give a 112(d) rejection at this time due to the ambiguity of this rejection and consequent interpretation to avoid such ambiguity, Applicant is considered on notice of this issue.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations of (a) notifying the first occupant of the delinquency of the assessments and proceeding through foreclosure in the event of non-payment; (b) a third party, under an assignment of rights from the community association, obtaining legal title of the property in the name of the community association via foreclosure; (c) inspecting the property to generate a rehabilitation plan; (d) transforming the property by executing the rehabilitation plan, including changing at least one entry lock and sanitizing the property; (e) leasing the property to a second occupant who pays a fee; (f) the third party receives the fee in lieu of service costs; and (g) the community association receiving a portion of the fee as assessments, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of (a) notifying the first occupant of the delinquency of the assessments and proceeding through foreclosure in the event of non-payment; (b) a third party, under an assignment of rights from the community association, obtaining legal title of the property in the name of the community association via foreclosure; (c) inspecting the property to generate a rehabilitation plan; (d) transforming the property by executing the rehabilitation plan, including changing at least one entry lock and sanitizing the property; (e) leasing the property to a second occupant who pays a fee; (f) the third party receives the fee in lieu of service costs; and (g) the community association receiving a portion of the fee as assessments, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an automated system including a drone with sensors, and at least one entry lock. An automated system including a drone with sensors, in the context of the claim as a whole, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). At least one entry lock, in the context of the claim as a whole, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses wherein changing at least one entry lock comprises updating an electronic lock code (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) stored in a secure database (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), synchronized with a central server for access control (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses wherein the step of changing at least one entry lock to the property comprises physically removing at least a portion of a lock (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use) from an entry door and replacing the removed portion with a different portion (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses wherein the step of changing at least one entry lock to the property comprises changing a code (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process) to a mechanical lock (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses wherein the step of changing at least one entry lock to the property comprises changing a code (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process) to an electronic lock (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses wherein inspecting the property comprises deploying a drone with a camera and environmental sensors to collect data (insignificant extra-solution activity), which is processed by a machine learning model (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) to generate the rehabilitation plan (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application. The limitation found to recite insignificant extra-solution activity is additionally found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional via the standards of 112(a) as one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize it as such based on the extremely high-level description of this functionality in the original disclosure (see Paragraphs 0058 and 0062 as filed).
Claim 7 discloses wherein the step of preparing the property for use by a second occupant comprises sanitizing the property (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 8 discloses wherein the step of preparing the property for use by a second occupant comprises painting at least one surface of the property (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 9 discloses wherein the step of preparing the property for use by a second occupant comprises removing unwanted matter from the property (further defining the abstract idea set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (PGPub 20250378512) (hereafter, “Weber”) in view of Parthasarathy (PGPub 20030036993) (hereafter, “Parthasarathy”), Tournier et al (PGPub 20220101507) (hereafter, “Tournier”), and Rovito et al (PGPub 20180062870) (hereafter, “Rovito”).
Regarding Claim 1, Weber discloses:
(e) leasing the property to a second occupant who pays a fee (Abstract; ¶ 0047, 0066, 0075; Figs. 1-3; pursuant to the transfer agreement, the acquirer leases a number of the parcels to one or more third parties); and
(f) the third party receives the fee in lieu of service costs (Abstract; ¶ 0047, 0066, 0075; Figs. 1-3; pursuant to the transfer agreement, the acquirer leases a number of the parcels to one or more third parties, and pays the institution a portion of revenue generated by leasing).
Weber does not explicitly disclose but Parthasarathy does disclose (a) notifying the first occupant of the delinquency of the assessments and proceeding through foreclosure in the event of non-payment (¶ 0017-0019, 0044, 0111-0112, 0148, 0153-0162, 0166; Fig. 8; if the system determines that a loan payment is due where no loan payment has been made, the system will send out a first notice to the borrower and to the lender indicating that a loan payment is due and has not been paid; if payment has not been made upon the second query, a second notice is sent to the borrower and to the lender indicating that the payment has not been made; at some time period after sending the second query, the system will ask the lender if the collateral is to be liquidated; if the lender wishes to liquidate, the system will initiate proceedings to liquidate the collateral and will forward the proceeds from the liquidation to the lender; the loan payment may comprise home owners' association fees; the collateral may be the real property).
Weber additionally discloses (b) a third party, under an assignment of rights from an entity, obtaining legal title of the property in the name of the entity via foreclosure (Abstract; ¶ 0047, 0066, 0072; Figs. 1-3; a real estate transaction management process includes an acquirer entering into a transfer agreement with a transaction institution to purchase a pool of real estate assets, the pool including institution-owned parcels and a plurality of delinquent loans; pursuant to the transfer agreement, the acquirer obtains the plurality of the encumbered parcels by one or more foreclosure sales). Weber does not explicitly disclose but Parthasarathy does disclose wherein the entity is the community association (¶ 0148; the system monitors if a loan payment is due; the loan payment may comprise home owners' association fees).
Weber additionally discloses (c) inspecting the property to generate a rehabilitation plan (¶ 0062, 0068; Figs. 1-2; in some instances the renovation proceeds on a parcel-by-parcel basis with the acquirer selecting a parcel, determining whether the parcel needs renovation, and if so performing the renovation). Weber does not explicitly disclose but Tournier does disclose doing so using an automated system, including a drone with sensors (Abstract; ¶ 0004, 0014, 0034, 0049, 0061, 0144, 0151, 0158-0159, 0198; Figs. 1, 3-4; a system may obtain and leverage knowledge of a physical environment, such as a building, through an inspection using a robotic device; the robotic device may be a drone equipped with one or more sensors (e.g., cameras, moisture sensors, gas and/or particulate matter sensors, light sensors, etc.); the system may schedule a drone to perform inspections of a building prior to a tenant of the building moving in, and/or when the tenant is expected to move out or when it is determined that the tenant has moved out; the drone can compare the observed elements to models for the elements to identify damage to the elements in the property and, in response, perform an action such as scheduling repair of the element).
Weber additionally discloses (d) transforming the property by executing the rehabilitation plan (¶ 0062, 0068; Figs. 1-2; in some instances the renovation proceeds on a parcel-by-parcel basis with the acquirer selecting a parcel, determining whether the parcel needs renovation, and if so performing the renovation). Weber does not explicitly disclose but Rovito does disclose including changing at least one entry lock (Abstract; ¶ 0014, 0016, 0040, 0042; Fig. 1; Claim 16; a computing device in an automation or gateway hub receives and stores automation settings from an automation management service environment over time; the automation settings can include different settings for various states of occupancy of a rental unit or dwelling; the second set of automation settings can be predefined by a property manager, for example, to help with transitioning the dwelling over to tenancy by one or more new tenants; when the automation hub loads the pre-stored vacancy automation settings into the home automation devices, the dwelling can be prepared for occupancy by another tenant; the automation device can be programmed by the automation hub to unlock a door when one or more PIN codes are entered by an individual using a keypad or when key data is received by near-field communications with the client device; those automation features and settings of the automation devices, among others, can be managed, in part, by the automation environment (and stored as the automation data); the transition monitor of the automation hub is configured to determine whether a transition in tenancy has occurred at the dwelling and, in response to the transition, trigger or direct the automation engine to load the appropriate (e.g., different, new, updated, etc.) automation settings into the home automation devices of the dwelling; additionally or alternatively, the automation hub can directly command one or more of the home automation devices based on the automation settings). Weber does not explicitly disclose but Tournier does disclose including sanitizing the property (¶ 0034, 0144, 0147, 0158, 0162, 0214; Figs. 3-4; the drone can compare the observed elements to models for the elements to identify damage to the elements in the property and, in response, perform an action such as scheduling repair of the element; the drone or control unit may determine that there is an issue with the object (e.g., damaged, dirty, wrong location, etc.); the system further includes one or more robotic devices, which may be devices that are intended for other purposes and associated with the system for use in appropriate circumstances, e.g., a robotic vacuum cleaner device may be controlled to take action responsive to monitoring system events).
Weber additionally discloses (g) the entity receiving a portion of the fee as assessments (Abstract; ¶ 0047, 0066, 0075; Figs. 1-3; pursuant to the transfer agreement, the acquirer leases a number of the parcels to one or more third parties, and pays the institution a portion of revenue generated by leasing). Weber does not explicitly disclose but Parthasarathy does disclose wherein the entity is the community association (¶ 0148; the system monitors if a loan payment is due; the loan payment may comprise home owners' association fees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the property delinquency techniques and arrangements of Parthasarathy with the delinquent property transfer, evaluation, renovation, and leasing system of Weber because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Parthasarathy are applicable to the base device (Weber), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to include the property inspection structure and techniques of Tournier with the delinquent property transfer, evaluation, renovation, and leasing system of Weber and Parthasarathy to improve building inspection, construction, and safety (see at least Paragraphs 0033-0036 of Tournier). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the property transfer preparation techniques of Rovito with the delinquent property transfer, evaluation, renovation, and leasing system of Weber, Parthasarathy, and Tournier because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Rovito are applicable to the base device (Weber, Parthasarathy, and Tournier), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claim 2, Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Weber does not explicitly disclose but Rovito does disclose wherein changing at least one entry lock comprises updating an electronic lock code stored in a secure database, synchronized with a central server for access control (Abstract; ¶ 0014, 0016, 0040, 0042; Fig. 1; Claim 16; a computing device in an automation or gateway hub receives and stores automation settings from an automation management service environment over time; the automation settings can include different settings for various states of occupancy of a rental unit or dwelling; the second set of automation settings can be predefined by a property manager, for example, to help with transitioning the dwelling over to tenancy by one or more new tenants; when the automation hub loads the pre-stored vacancy automation settings into the home automation devices, the dwelling can be prepared for occupancy by another tenant; the automation device can be programmed by the automation hub to unlock a door when one or more PIN codes are entered by an individual using a keypad or when key data is received by near-field communications with the client device; those automation features and settings of the automation devices, among others, can be managed, in part, by the automation environment (and stored as the automation data); the transition monitor of the automation hub is configured to determine whether a transition in tenancy has occurred at the dwelling and, in response to the transition, trigger or direct the automation engine to load the appropriate (e.g., different, new, updated, etc.) automation settings into the home automation devices of the dwelling; additionally or alternatively, the automation hub can directly command one or more of the home automation devices based on the automation settings).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Weber does not explicitly disclose but Rovito does disclose wherein the step of changing at least one entry lock to the property comprises changing a code to a mechanical lock (Abstract; ¶ 0014, 0016, 0040, 0042; Fig. 1; Claim 16; a computing device in an automation or gateway hub receives and stores automation settings from an automation management service environment over time; the automation settings can include different settings for various states of occupancy of a rental unit or dwelling; the second set of automation settings can be predefined by a property manager, for example, to help with transitioning the dwelling over to tenancy by one or more new tenants; when the automation hub loads the pre-stored vacancy automation settings into the home automation devices, the dwelling can be prepared for occupancy by another tenant; the automation device can be programmed by the automation hub to unlock a door when one or more PIN codes are entered by an individual using a keypad or when key data is received by near-field communications with the client device; those automation features and settings of the automation devices, among others, can be managed, in part, by the automation environment (and stored as the automation data); the transition monitor of the automation hub is configured to determine whether a transition in tenancy has occurred at the dwelling and, in response to the transition, trigger or direct the automation engine to load the appropriate (e.g., different, new, updated, etc.) automation settings into the home automation devices of the dwelling; additionally or alternatively, the automation hub can directly command one or more of the home automation devices based on the automation settings).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Weber does not explicitly disclose but Rovito does disclose 5. The process in accordance with claim 2, wherein the step of changing at least one entry lock to the property comprises changing a code to an electronic lock (Abstract; ¶ 0014, 0016, 0040, 0042; Fig. 1; Claim 16; a computing device in an automation or gateway hub receives and stores automation settings from an automation management service environment over time; the automation settings can include different settings for various states of occupancy of a rental unit or dwelling; the second set of automation settings can be predefined by a property manager, for example, to help with transitioning the dwelling over to tenancy by one or more new tenants; when the automation hub loads the pre-stored vacancy automation settings into the home automation devices, the dwelling can be prepared for occupancy by another tenant; the automation device can be programmed by the automation hub to unlock a door when one or more PIN codes are entered by an individual using a keypad or when key data is received by near-field communications with the client device; those automation features and settings of the automation devices, among others, can be managed, in part, by the automation environment (and stored as the automation data); the transition monitor of the automation hub is configured to determine whether a transition in tenancy has occurred at the dwelling and, in response to the transition, trigger or direct the automation engine to load the appropriate (e.g., different, new, updated, etc.) automation settings into the home automation devices of the dwelling; additionally or alternatively, the automation hub can directly command one or more of the home automation devices based on the automation settings).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Weber does not explicitly disclose but Tournier does disclose:
wherein inspecting the property comprises deploying a drone with a camera and environmental sensors to collect data (Abstract; ¶ 0004, 0014, 0034, 0049, 0061, 0144, 0151, 0158-0159, 0198; Figs. 1, 3-4; a system may obtain and leverage knowledge of a physical environment, such as a building, through an inspection using a robotic device; the robotic device may be a drone equipped with one or more sensors (e.g., cameras, moisture sensors, gas and/or particulate matter sensors, light sensors, etc.); the system may schedule a drone to perform inspections of a building prior to a tenant of the building moving in, and/or when the tenant is expected to move out or when it is determined that the tenant has moved out; the drone can compare the observed elements to models for the elements to identify damage to the elements in the property and, in response, perform an action such as scheduling repair of the element); and
which is processed by a machine learning model to generate the rehabilitation plan (¶ 0014, 0022, 0099, 0144, 0186-0187; Figs. 1, 3-4; the system may schedule a drone to perform inspections of a building prior to a tenant of the building moving in, and/or when the tenant is expected to move out or when it is determined that the tenant has moved out; the drone can compare the observed elements to models for the elements to identify damage to the elements in the property and, in response, perform an action such as scheduling repair of the element; the method includes detecting the prioritized element from the sensor data of the particular portion of the property by using a machine learning algorithm, where obtaining the additional sensor data includes obtaining, using the one or more sensors of the drone, sensor data; the control unit or the drone may determine a condition (e.g., whether it is damaged, discolored, etc.) of a prioritized element (e.g., a sink)).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Weber does not explicitly disclose but Tournier does disclose wherein the step of preparing the property for use by a second occupant comprises sanitizing the property (¶ 0034, 0144, 0147, 0158, 0162, 0214; Figs. 3-4; the drone can compare the observed elements to models for the elements to identify damage to the elements in the property and, in response, perform an action such as scheduling repair of the element; the drone or control unit may determine that there is an issue with the object (e.g., damaged, dirty, wrong location, etc.); the system further includes one or more robotic devices, which may be devices that are intended for other purposes and associated with the system for use in appropriate circumstances, e.g., a robotic vacuum cleaner device may be controlled to take action responsive to monitoring system events).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Weber additionally discloses wherein the step of preparing the property for use by a second occupant comprises painting at least one surface of the property (¶ 0048-0051, 0062, 0068; Figs. 1-2; in some instances the renovation proceeds on a parcel-by-parcel basis with the acquirer selecting a parcel, determining whether the parcel needs renovation, and if so performing the renovation; the term "renovation" means most any kind of work on a parcel that alters, improves, or physically transforms some aspect of the physical condition of the parcel, e.g., painting the exterior or interior of a house or associated garage).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, Rovito, and Minsley et al (PGPub 20230039893) (hereafter, “Minsley”).
Regarding Claim 3, Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Weber does not explicitly disclose but Parthasarathy does disclose wherein the step of changing at least one entry lock to the property comprises physically removing at least a portion of a lock from an entry door and replacing the removed portion with a different portion (Abstract; ¶ 0209, 0216; a system and method for randomly generating unlock codes and identifiers for locks, and creating unlock code and identifier pairs; the invention is integrated with, or part of, a distributed management system that controls access to various locations, such as, for example, hotel rooms, apartment buildings, short-term housing rentals, etc.; additional trigger events can include, but are not limited to: (1) an authorized user is added to an existing self-storage unit rental, (2) a new lock is applied to the self-storage unit (i.e., in the event an existing lock is damaged or no longer functioning, or the existing lock needs to be replaced)).
The rationale to combine Weber, Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito remains the same as for Claim 1. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the property physical locking techniques of Minsley with the delinquent property transfer, evaluation, renovation, and leasing system of Weber, Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito because the combination merely constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Minsley are applicable to the base device (Weber, Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, Rovito, and Kubokawa (JP 2014203107) (hereafter, “Kubokawa”).
Regarding Claim 9, Weber in view of Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Weber does not explicitly disclose but Parthasarathy does disclose wherein the step of preparing the property for use by a second occupant comprises removing unwanted matter from the property (pg. 3; for the rental condominium management business performed by the contractor, for example, building cleaning (common areas / garbage storage / outside the building)).
The rationale to combine Weber, Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito remains the same as for Claim 1. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the property renovation and preparation techniques of Kubokawa with the delinquent property transfer, evaluation, renovation, and leasing system of Weber, Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito because the combination merely constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Kubokawa are applicable to the base device (Weber, Parthasarathy, Tournier, and Rovito), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20120005122 – “Real Estate Investment Method for Purchasing a Plurality of Distressed Properties from a Single Institution at Formula-Derived Prices,” Khan et al, disclosing a system for purchasing delinquent properties, leasing out said purchased properties, and splitting the profits
PGPub 20070027704 – “System And Method For Community Association Violation Tracking And Processing,” Patel et al, disclosing a computer-implemented method for tracking and processing violations of regulations of a community association, notify tenants of such violations, inspecting properties, and generate work orders for repairs
Daskalov, Crisis' Heritage Management - New Business Opportunities Out of the Financial Collapse, arXiv 1612.08689, disclosing various methods of recouping delinquent costs associated with properties, including techniques involving foreclosure and leasing of said properties
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628