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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
1. If the limitations from dependent claims 4,5 are incorporated into all the independent claims (1,8, 15), the instant application would be in condition for allowance, pending approval of terminal disclaimers filed over the identified patents (see the Double Patenting Rejection below).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
2. Claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 of US Patent 11,593,887 herein the *887 patent.3. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 9 of the *887 patent recites all the limitations of claims 1,8, 15 of the instant application. However, in the instant application, the limitations, “a renters analytic computing device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: retrieve a pre-rental record including parameters of the short-term rental of the property, the parameters including an anticipated number of renters, a start date, and an end date; transmit, to a homeowner associated with the property, a preliminary adjusted coverage rate to cover the property between the start date and the end date based upon the baseline profile; implement, upon approval from the homeowner associated with the property, the preliminary adjusted coverage rate; retrieve a subset of the property telematics data associated with a duration of time between the start date and the end date; update, within the database, the baseline profile to an actual profile using the subset of the property telematics data; and transmit, to the homeowner, the actual profile and a difference between the preliminary adjusted coverage rate and an adjusted coverage rate” are not disclosed.
4. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 1,9 of the *887 patent by removing the limitations, “a renters analytic computing device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
retrieve a pre-rental record including parameters of the short-term rental of the property, the parameters including an anticipated number of renters, a start date, and an end date; transmit, to a homeowner associated with the property, a preliminary adjusted coverage rate to cover the property between the start date and the end date based upon the baseline profile; implement, upon approval from the homeowner associated with the property, the preliminary adjusted coverage rate; retrieve a subset of the property telematics data associated with a duration of time between the start date and the end date; update, within the database, the baseline profile to an actual profile using the subset of the property telematics data; and transmit, to the homeowner, the actual profile and a difference between the preliminary adjusted coverage rate and an adjusted coverage rate”, since the claims of the present application and the claims recited in the *887 patent indeed do perform a similar function.
5. Claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 of US Patent 12,020,332 herein the *332 patent.6. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 9 of the *332 patent recites all the limitations of claims 1,8, 15 of the instant application. However, in the instant application, the limitations, “the renters analytic computing device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: retrieve a pre-rental record including parameters of the short-term rental of the property, the parameters including a start date and an end date; and transmit, to a homeowner associated with the property, (i) the differential profile showing the difference between expected utility usage and an actual utility usage for the property during the short-term rental, and (ii) a preliminary adjusted coverage rate to cover the property between the start date and the end date based upon the baseline profile” are not disclosed.
7. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 1,9 of the *332 patent by removing the limitations, “the renters analytic computing device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: retrieve a pre-rental record including parameters of the short-term rental of the property, the parameters including a start date and an end date; and transmit, to a homeowner associated with the property, (i) the differential profile showing the difference between expected utility usage and an actual utility usage for the property during the short-term rental, and (ii) a preliminary adjusted coverage rate to cover the property between the start date and the end date based upon the baseline profile”, since the claims of the present application and the claims recited in the *332 patent indeed do perform a similar function.
8. Instant claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,400,274 herein the *274 patent.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1,8, 15 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1,8, 15 of the *274 patent.
The limitations from instant claim 1, “ a computing system for updating records associated with usage of a property for a period of time, the computing system comprising: one or more property telematics devices for monitoring utility usage at the
property, the one or more property telematics devices comprising at least one of one or
more utility usage sensors or one or more light-based sensors in communication with a
property telematics controller, the one or more property telematics devices configured to: in response to receiving, by the property telematics controller, a
computer instruction from an analytics computing device, prepare to transmit
property telematics data for the property to the analytics computing device via the
property telematics controller; and the analytics computing device comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from the property telematics controller, the property
telematics data collected by the one or more property telematics devices and
including utility usage data collected for the property during the period of time; and
compare a baseline profile stored within the at least one memory to an actual profile of the property to generate a differential profile showing a difference in the utility usage data for the property during the period of time” are present in claims 1,8, 15 of the *274 patent.
Therefore, claims 1,8,15 of the *274 patent is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of instant claims 1,8,15. It has been held that a generic invention is anticipated by a species within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Circ. 1993).
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, 15 are directed to a system, method and computer readable storage medium which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computing system for updating records associated with usage of a property for a period of time, the computing system comprising:
one or more property telematics devices for monitoring utility usage at the property, the one or more property telematics devices comprising at least one of one or more utility usage sensors or one or more light-based sensors in communication with a property telematics controller, the one or more property telematics devices configured to:
in response to receiving, by the property telematics controller, a computer instruction from an analytics computing device, prepare to transmit property telematics data for the property to the analytics computing device via the property telematics controller; and
the analytics computing device comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from the property telematics controller, the property telematics data collected by the one or more property telematics devices and including utility usage data collected for the property during the period of time; and
compare a baseline profile stored within the at least one memory to an actual profile of the property to generate a differential profile showing a difference in the utility usage data for the property during the period of time.
The claim elements that are recited in bold above, (for monitoring utility usage at the property; in response to receiving, prepare to transmit property telematics data for the property; receive, the property telematics data collected and including utility usage data collected for the property during the period of time; and compare a baseline profile stored within the at least one memory to an actual profile of the property to generate a differential profile showing a difference in the utility usage data for the property during the period of time), which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically a concept performed mentally by a human with pen and paper (steps for determining utility usage for a property).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 8,15 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) 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 (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (8) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 1, 8,15 includes the following additional elements:
-One or more property telematics devices comprising at least one or more utility based sensors or one or more light based sensors
-A property telematics controller
- An analytics computing device comprising at least one memory and at least one processor
- A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
The one or more property telematics devices, property telematics controller, analytics computing device, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and is not a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 8, 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO). The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Representative claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible.
Thus claims 1, 8, 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO.) The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, 20 which further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8,15 and thus correspond to a Mental process and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Therefore, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, 20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 20 are not patent-eligible.
No Prior Art
Based on prior art search results, the prior art neither anticipates or renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, the prior art of record does no teach, “ the one or more property telematics devices configured to: compare a baseline profile stored within the at least one memory to an actual profile of the property to generate a differential profile showing a difference in the utility usage data for the property during the period of time”
The closest prior art of record are:
US 2013/0096954 to Bodas discloses, “An advanced underwriting and risk evaluation system leverages data from utility based metering devices and other IP addressable devices, and machines to provide real time operational and usage data. The data is used by an insurance entity to modify and adjust insurance coverages and premiums in the case of certain usage exceptions and conditions in view of an underlying policy coverage.”
US 2012/0116620 to English et al, discloses, “A system and method are disclosed herein for maintaining an inventory of assets located at an insured property covered under an insurance policy based on data received from IP-addressable devices located at the property. The system includes an inventory database for storing inventory information about assets located at an insured property, a communication interface for receiving registration and operational data associated with an IP-addressable device, and a business logic computer. The business logic computer creates a data structure for storing inventory information about assets located at the insured property in the inventory database for each insured property. The business logic computer determines, for the insured property, the inventory information about the insured property's assets based on registration and operational data received from its IP-addressable devices located at the property. The business logic computer stores the insured property's inventory information in its associated data structure in the inventory database.”
US 2014/0136242 to Weekes et al, discloses, “In a computer-implemented method of incentivizing low-loss behaviors, in-home data is received. The in-home data is generated by, or based on information generated by, a device located at a residence of an individual, and is indicative of one or both of (i) a utilization of the device and (ii) a condition monitored by the device. The method also includes determining, based on the received in-home data, an insurance premium adjustment for the individual, and providing an indication of the determined insurance premium adjustment.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights