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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of 2/9/2026. The rejections are stated below. Claims 7-18 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendment/arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 have been considered and the rejection is updated based on Applicant’s amendment. Applicant asserts the claim is not directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites a process for determining damage to rental property by comparing documentation at lease commencement to documentation at lease termination. A server performs the following operations: receiving information about property condition, prompting a device to capture images, generating documentation, aligning images, comparing images using pixel level comparison, applying a timestamp weighting rule, retrieving stored deduction amounts, calculating a refund, and processing a payment. These operations describe a method of evaluating property condition and calculating a financial obligation. The judicial exception encompasses methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and data comparison rules. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). The claimed process as a whole describes an abstract concept.
Applicant argues the claim recites specific technical processes including server controlled GPS based image capture, metadata inclusion, image registration, pixel level comparison, and timestamp weighting. Server controlled image capture using GPS and orientation information. The claim recites a server directing a camera equipped mobile device to specified locations using GPS signals. A server that provides location data to a client device is a fundamental computer operation. The GPS receiver and orientation sensor collect location and direction data. Incorporating location data into an image file does not transform the abstract process of property inspection into a patent eligible application. The claim does not recite a specific technical implementation of location based services beyond the conventional use of GPS data to direct device movement. Image registration and alignment. The claim recites aligning a first image set with a second image set by matching corresponding viewpoints. Image registration is a routine image processing operation that existed in the prior art before the priority date. The claim recites comparing images by evaluating individual pixel values. Pixel level comparison is a standard digital image analysis technique present in prior art software. Pixel comparison is a data manipulation without technical specificity that would remove the claim from the abstract idea category. The claim recites a rule that documentation captured closer to the rental period boundaries receives greater analytical priority. This rule is a data evaluation heuristic. It describes a mental process for resolving discrepancies between two sets of information. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm for implementing this weighting rule. The mere selection of certain data points for preferential treatment does not constitute a patent eligible technological improvement.
Applicant relies on Enfish v. Microsoft for the proposition that claims must be evaluated based on asserted improvement. In Enfish, the claimed invention directed to a self referential table for a computer database. The court found the claims were not directed to an abstract idea because they recited a specific data structure that improved database operation. Here, the claim does not recite any specific data structure or computer architecture. The claim recites a series of operations applied to property condition data. These operations do not improve the way a computer functions or stores data. The claim uses a computer as a tool to perform property evaluation and financial calculation tasks.
Applicant also relies on McRO v. Bandai Namco and DDR Holdings. McRO involved a specific rule based method for computer generated animation that produced realistic lip synchronization. The court found the claim was not abstract because it recited a specific set of rules that improved animation technology. DDR Holdings involved a system that solved a problem unique to the Internet environment, namely retaining website visitors by generating a composite web page. The claim here does not address a problem unique to computer networks. The claim addresses the problem of property damage documentation, a problem that existed before computer networks. The claim does not recite a specific technological improvement in digital imaging workflows. The operations of collecting images, aligning them, comparing pixels, and assigning temporal weights are all operations that a person could perform manually with paper photographs and a checklist. The claim simply recites performing these operations using a computer. Adding computer implementation to a manual process does not create patent eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.
Applicant argues the claim cannot be performed by a human. This argument is incorrect. A person can compare property conditions using photographs taken at different times. A person can assign greater evidentiary weight to photographs taken closer to the rental start date. A person can produce a checklist of damages and calculate a deduction amount. That a computer performs pixel value comparisons or image registration algorithms does not transform a manual inspection process into a patent eligible invention. The claimed method of evaluating damage to rental property is a routine business practice.
Applicant argues the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements including a server, user devices, webpages, image capture devices, GPS capabilities, orientation sensors, memory for storing preset standard amounts, and an electronic payment interface. These elements are computer peripherals and networking components that perform data collection, storage, and transmission functions. The claim does not recite an improvement to any technology or technical field. The claim uses GPS and orientation sensors to capture location data. The claim uses image registration and pixel comparison to identify differences between images. The claim uses a timestamp weighting rule to prioritize certain data. Each of these operations performs its ordinary function. The claim does not alter the function of the server, the user devices, or the image capture devices. The claim does not describe a new type of image capture device. The claim does not describe a new image registration algorithm. The claim does not describe a new method of pixel comparison. The claim does not describe a new electronic payment protocol. The claim recites existing technologies performing their intended functions within the context of rental property damage assessment. The claim does not provide a solution to a technological problem. The problem addressed in the specification is inaccurate documentation of rental property condition leading to deposit disputes. The specification describes that rentees lose deposits when they do not collect evidence at appropriate times. The claimed solution is to automate the evidence collection and comparison process using existing computer technologies. Automating a manual business process using available computer hardware and generic software algorithms does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Providing a computer interface for entering data and storing images does not constitute patent eligible subject matter. See OIP Technologies v. Amazon.com.
Applicant argues the claim elements are not well understood, routine, or conventional. This argument is not persuasive. The claim recites server operations, user device interactions, GPS directed image capture, metadata inclusion, image registration, pixel level comparison, timestamp weighting, database retrieval of preset amounts, and electronic payment processing. Each of these operations was performed by computers before August 14, 2009. The USPTO maintains a training repository of technology specific information for evaluating patent eligibility. The Eligible Subject Matter Example 41 identifies that steps such as capturing images using a device camera, receiving location data, storing the images and location data in a memory, and comparing images to identify differences are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible application when the claim as a whole is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea. The claim recites a result, namely determining damage to rental property and calculating a deposit refund. The operations recited to achieve that result are the conventional steps one would expect in a system that automates manual property inspection. The server collects data. The server stores data. The server compares data. The server retrieves stored values. The server computes a financial result. The server initiates a payment. These operations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining an amount of damage or insurance without significantly more.
Claims 7-18 are directed to a method which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 7 recites “a method implemented by a …for determining an amount of damage occurred to a rental property by a rentee during a rental period, the method comprising:
…;
receiving, from the …, information inputted on the … and
associated with a state of each portion of the rental property during commencement of the rental period;
based on a detection that a state of a specific portion of the rental property, identified based on the received information associated with the state of each portion of the rental property during the commencement of the rental period, corresponds to a predefined condition state; …of a specific portion of the rental property from a plurality of directions and orientations, during commencement of the rental period, wherein each … of the first set of … includes time and date information and direction and orientation information associated with the capture of the corresponding … and wherein the … controls the capture by directing the … to specified physical locations and orientations using … capabilities and orientation information associated with the …;
generating a first documentation based on the captured first set of …, the received information associated with the state of each portion of the rental property during the commencement of the rental period, the time and date information, and the direction and orientation information associated with the capture of each … of the first set of …;
delivering, on the … upon detection of a termination of the rental period;
receiving, from the …, information inputted on the … and associated with a state of each portion of the rental property during the termination of the rental period;
… including the second set of image capture devices to capture a second set of … of the specific portion of the rental property from the plurality of directions and orientations, during the termination of the rental period, wherein each … of the second set of … includes time and date information and direction and orientation information associated with the capture of the corresponding … and wherein the .. controls the capture by directing the … to specified physical locations and orientations using … capabilities and orientation information associated with the …;
generating a second documentation based on the captured second set of …, the received information associated with the state of each portion of the rental property during the termination of the rental period, the time and date information, and the direction and orientation information associated with the capture of each …;
aligning, by the …, the first set of … from the first documentation and the second set of … from the second documentation by aligning … that are alike, including performing … registration to match corresponding viewpoints:
comparing, by the …, the first documentation and the second documentation using … and identifying one or more damages occurred to the rental property during the rental period, based on the comparing. including applying a timestamp-proximity weighting process wherein documentation or … having timestamps closer to the commencement or termination of the rental period are given greater weight;
retrieving, by the …, preset standard amounts for the identified one or more damages stored in a …, and calculating by the …, a total deduction amount based on the retrieved present standard amounts;
calculating, by the …, a deposit refund based on an initial deposit amount and the determined preset standard amounts; and
paying, via an …, the calculated deposit refund to the rentee in an electronic format”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of determining an amount of damage or insurance and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (insurance or risk management). Accordingly, claim 7 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
These limitations describe an abstract idea of determining an amount of damage or insurance and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (insurance or risk management).
The claim also recites as additional elements such as “server, delivering, on a first user device, a first webpage with a first link, prompting, by the server, the first user device including a first set of image capture devices to capture a first set of images, global positioning system (GPS), delivering, on the second user device, a second webpage with a second link, pixel-level comparison including a pixel scanner, electronic payment service interface, electronic format” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 7 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 7 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, e.g., an image capturing device, images of the rental property, and server are recited at a high level of generality. This generic limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 8 recites “wherein the first documentation includes a … of the rental property and the second documentation includes a … of the rental property” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes “first video” and ”second video” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 9 recites “further comprising comparing the first video to the second video to determine if there is any damage to the condition of the rental property” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “first video” and ”second video” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first documentation includes a first checklist including questions about the condition of the rental property and answers received from the rentee, and the second documentation includes a second checklist about the condition of the rental property” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites “further comprising comparing the first checklist to the second checklist to determine if there is any damage to the condition of the rental property” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising: receiving the first documentation from a renter at or before the start of the rental period; receiving the first documentation from the rentee at or on the start of the rental period; receiving the second documentation from the renter on or after termination of the rental period; receiving the second documentation from the rentee on or after termination of the rental period; and comparing the first documentation from the renter and from the rentee to the second documentation from the renter and the rentee to determine if there is any damage to the condition of the rental property at the termination of the rental period” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites “further comprising receiving, by the …, a third documentation from the rentee about the condition of the rental property at some time after the start of the rental period and before the termination of the rental period” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “server” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 14 recites “further comprising comparing the first documentation, the second documentation and the third documentation to determine if there is any damage to the condition of the rental property” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the comparing step is performed by a person using the …” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “server” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the first documentation includes at least one electronic document and at least one image, and the second documentation includes at least one electronic document and at least one image” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “electronic” and “image” as an additional element. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the server is connected to one or more communication networks” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the first documentation and the second documentation are time-stamped with a date and a time of when the first documentation and the second documentation are received by the …” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “server” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “applying a timestamp-proximity weighting process wherein documentation or images having timestamps closer to the commencement or termination of the rental period are given greater weight”. Applicant’s specification contains no disclosure of any “timestamp-proximity weighting process,” nor does it mention “weight,” “weighting process,” or “greater weight” in connection with timestamps. A search of the entire specification reveals zero instances of the terms "timestamp," "weight," "weighting," "greater weight," or any phrase suggesting a weighting algorithm based on timestamp proximity. While the specification describes resolving discrepancies by assigning “more credence” to documentation with a closer timestamp (see 0046), this is a binary choice, not a mathematical or algorithmic “weighting process” that yields a quantifiable “greater weight.” The specification provides no description of how such a weighting process would be implemented, what the weights are, how they are calculated, or how they are applied in the damage-determination algorithm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would thus be unable to determine the scope of this limitation or understand that the inventors possessed a “weighting process” as opposed to a simple heuristic. Dependent claims 8-18 do not remedy the deficiency of claim 7 and stand rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 7 recites “… direction and orientation information associated with the capture of the corresponding image … “. Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0034 recites “the server 26 would then prompt the rentee via the CCU to physically move to specific locations throughout the rental property using commercially available GPS location techniques and applications, and to take pictures in a certain direction or orientation”. The specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill that the inventors possessed “image of the first set of images includes time and date information and direction and orientation information” or “the second set of images includes time and date information and direction and orientation information”. Thus, the claim recites subject matter that was not described in the specification. See MPEP §2163 (written description requirement).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am through 6pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights