DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is an Office Action in response to amendment filed on December 29, 2025.
Claims 1 and 28 are amended.
Claims 1-14, 16-25, 28-41, 43-55, 79 and 80 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The present application claims priority to provisional application 63/045,026, filed on June 26, 2020
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained and maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained and maintained in light of the amendment.
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 1-14, 16-25, 28-41, 43-55, 79 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-14, 16-25 and 79-80 are directed to a method (i.e. a process) and claims 28-41 and 43-55 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1 and 28, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The limitations of independent claim 28, which is representative of independent claim 1, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The bold language of claim 28 recites a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) as explained further below:
a primary device comprising mobile device, the primary device comprising: a processor in communication with a memory; a user interface in communication with the processor, the user interface including a touch-sensitive display and a data entry interface; a communications module in communication with the processor and configured to provide a communications interface to a third-party server, the third-party server further including a database, a server processor and a server memory; wherein one or more of the memory of the primary device or the server memory includes instructions that when respectively executed by the processor or the server processor perform the steps of:
presenting a primary device associated with a device owner for assessment of insurability and/or warrantability;
performing a diagnostic assessment of one or more features of a primary device presented by a device owner;
analyzing diagnostic assessment results regarding the primary device and storing the analyzed results in a database record in the database, the database record associated with an identifier of the primary device;
identifying one or more secondary devices associated with the device owner;
respectively associating a unique secondary device identifier with each identified secondary device and storing the respective secondary device identifier and data regarding each respective identified secondary device in the database record;
for each identified secondary device, determine whether a diagnostic assessment should be performed, and if so, perform a diagnostic assessment of one or more device features of such identified secondary device, storing results of the diagnostic assessment in the database record associated with the respective secondary device identifier;
respectively analyzing the database record the primary device diagnostic assessment and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to determine options regarding insurance or warranty coverage; wherein analyzing the database record, the primary device diagnostic assessment, and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment further comprises:
comparing the primary device diagnostic assessment to neural network training data stored in the database record, the neural network training data including a plurality of images associated with an identified defect;
identifying a primary device defect by comparing the primary device diagnostic assessment to the plurality of images associated with the identified defect;
comparing each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to the neural network training data stored in the database record;
identifying a secondary device defect by comparing each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to the plurality of images associated with the identified defect; and
modifying the neural network training data stored in the database record to include the primary device diagnostic assessment and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment, and augmenting accuracy by modifying the neural network through training using the modified neural network training data to improve accuracy of recognition of the device defects for primary or secondary devices;
presenting a list identifying the primary device and identified secondary devices along with respective options regarding insurance or warranty coverage to the primary owner;
installing a dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device;
activating the dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device, such that the dynamic insurance evaluator application remains active and executes in the background of the primary device;
detecting, automatically via the dynamic insurance evaluator application, secondary devices that communicate with the primary device; and
determining, automatically via the dynamic insurance evaluator application, insurance eligibility of the secondary devices that communicate with the primary device.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of assessing device to provide insurance coverage for risk mitigation (see app. spec. para. [0002]).
The bolded portions of limitations above recite concepts performable in the human mind including observation, evaluation, and judgement, which falls under “Mental Processes,” one of the abstract idea categories. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements (which are the non-bolded portions above and are evaluated under step 2A prong two and step 2B, in below), the claims 1 and 28 recite processes that are all acts that could be performed by a human, e.g., mentally or manually, using a pen and paper, without the use of a computer or any other machine. For example, person such as an insurer (discussed in app. specification background [0004], using pen and paper or via oral communication, could be presented with a customer/owner of a device for assessment of insurability and/or warrantability by performing a diagnostic assessment by an insurer, visually or manually, by observation, evaluation, and judgement, for features (for example, physical condition) of a device presented by the device owner; store the analyzed result, physically in a paper database record; the database record is associated with an identifier of the primary device; identify (e.g., observation, evaluation, and judgement) one or more secondary devices associated with the device owner; respectively associating a unique secondary device identifier with each identified secondary device and storing the respective secondary device identifier and data regarding each respective identified secondary device in the physical paper database record; respectively analyze the database record the primary device diagnostic assessment and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to determine options regarding insurance or warranty coverage; compare diagnostic assessment with training information/data previously stored record including images of identified defects; identifying device defect by comparing the diagnostic assessment with the images; compare secondary/other devices diagnostic assessment to the training information/data previously stored in record; identify secondary/other devices defect by comparing the diagnostic assessment with the images; modifying the training information/data stored in the database record; present a list identifying the primary device and identified secondary devices along with respective options regarding insurance or warranty coverage to the primary owner; detect (i.e. visually observe, evaluate or judge) the secondary device is communicating with the primary device; and determine (i.e. evaluation) insurance eligibility for the devices. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and presenting the information. These steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally, the claim recites a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of providing insurance options to mitigate risk for device products. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements (which are the non-bolded portions above and are evaluated under step 2A prong two and step 2B, in below), the steps of determining options regarding insurance or warranty coverage and presenting the list of options regarding insurance or warranty coverage to the primary owner for the purpose of risk mitigation, as discussed in applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0002] and [0041], which is consistent with fundamental economic principles or practices of insurance. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “neural network”, “installing a dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device;” “activating the dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device, such that the dynamic insurance evaluator application remains active and executes in the background of the primary device;” “automatically via the dynamic insurance evaluator application;” and “database;”
Claim 28: “a primary device comprising mobile device, the primary device comprising: a processor in communication with a memory; a user interface in communication with the processor, the user interface including a touch-sensitive display and a data entry interface; a communications module in communication with the processor and configured to provide a communications interface to a third-party server, the third-party server further including a database, a server processor and a server memory; wherein one or more of the memory of the primary device or the server memory includes instructions that when respectively executed by the processor or the server processor perform the steps of;” “neural network”, “installing a dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device;” “activating the dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device, such that the dynamic insurance evaluator application remains active and executes in the background of the primary device;” “automatically via the dynamic insurance evaluator application;”
(Broadest reasonable interpretation: “automatically” does not mean without human interaction. Examiner asserts a process may be automatic even though a human initiates or may interrupt to the process. The term “automatically” can be construed to mean “once initiated by a human, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function.” Collegenet, Inc. v. Applyyourself, Inc. (CAFC, 04-1202,-1222,-1251, 8/2/2005).)
In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements - the use of “a primary device comprising mobile device, the primary device comprising: a processor in communication with a memory; a user interface in communication with the processor, the user interface including a touch-sensitive display and a data entry interface; a communications module in communication with the processor and configured to provide a communications interface to a third-party server, the third-party server further including a database, a server processor and a server memory; wherein one or more of the memory of the primary device or the server memory includes instructions that when respectively executed by the processor or the server processor perform the steps of”; “neural network”, “installing a dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device;” “activating the dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device, such that the dynamic insurance evaluator application remains active and executes in the background of the primary device;” and “automatically via the dynamic insurance evaluator application”; to present, analyze, identify, compare, modify, detect, and determine information.
The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, i.e. these generic computing elements are merely being used to perform the tasks of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication from the specification that the computer elements are anything but generic hardware and/or software, and the combination of elements is simply a generic computing system (see Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0015], [0050], [0074]-[0091] and Fig. 7 indicating generic computing devices and components including software applications. In para. [0089] indicates neural network can be modified for the expected result of improve accuracy of recognition of device defects without further technical detail to how the accuracy is improved). See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
That is, the function of limitations [B]-[R] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly, reciting the abstract idea as software functions used to program a generic computer is not significant or meaningful: generic computers are programmed with software to perform various functions every day. A programmed generic computer is not a particular machine and by itself does not amount to an inventive concept because, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as discussed in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, it is not relevant that a human may perform a task differently from a computer. It is necessarily true that a human might apply an abstract idea in a different manner from a computer. What matters is the application, “stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” will not render an abstract idea non-abstract. Tranxition v. Lenovo, Nos. 2015-1907, -1941, -1958 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016), slip op. at 7-8.
Here, the instructions entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the role of the generic computing elements recited in claims, is the same as the role of the computer in the claims considered by the Supreme Court in Alice, and the claim as whole amounts merely to an instruction to apply the abstract idea on the generic computerised system. Therefore, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (2106.04(d)).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [B]-[R] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for assessing device to provide insurance coverage risk mitigation. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2 and 29 further provide descriptive information regarding the primary device. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 3 and 30 further provide descriptive information regarding the secondary device. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 4 and 31 further recite additional abstract step of installing an app on the primary device to perform the diagnostic assessment, which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 5 and 32 recite additional abstract step regarding the performing of the diagnostic assessment of one or more features of the primary device in a remote server communicatively coupled to the primary device. The claim limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) - the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 6 and 33 recite additional abstract step regarding remotely installing an app on the secondary device to perform the diagnostic assessment of one or more features of the secondary device. The claim limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer function, see app. para. [0075]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) - the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 7 and 34 recite additional abstract step regarding scanning a network in communication with the primary device and itemizing devices found included in the network; contacting a mobile network operator (i.e. human) providing service and obtaining from the mobile network operator (i.e. human) a list of devices in a group service plan with the primary device; manually entering, by the device owner (i.e. human), information regarding the one or more secondary devices; and sending an email or text message to an account accessible by a secondary device, and prompting a user of the secondary device to click on a link to provide information. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of scanning a network/information; itemizing devices information; and transmitting/providing/sending information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) - the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Other steps of contacting an operator and manually entering information by the owner are abstract steps that are performed by human. Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 8 and 35 recite additional abstract steps regarding performing a diagnostic assessment of an identified secondary device includes requesting the second device to perform a self-test; and receiving results of the self-test. The claim limitations do not change the abstract idea of the independent claims because a person, themselves can perform a diagnostic assessment based on observation, evaluation, and judgement, then send the result. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) - the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” In combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 9 and 36 recite additional abstract step regarding prompting the device owner to select coverage options from the presented coverage options and storing the selection in the database. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) - the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 10 and 37 recite additional abstract step regarding the presenting a list further comprises computing and displaying to the device owner a total monthly premium for elected insurance or warranty options. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of analyzing and displaying information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) - the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” In combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 11 and 38 recite additional abstract step regarding analyzing and updating device information in database. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of analyzing and updating information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). In combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 12 and 39 recite additional abstract step regarding re-assessing insurance or coverage options and presenting an updated list to the user. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of analyzing and presenting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). In combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 13 and 40 further provide descriptive information regarding the insurance or warranty coverage options. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 14 and 41 further provide descriptive information regarding the determining whether a diagnostic assessment should be performed. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 16 and 43 further provide descriptive information regarding the identifier of the primary device. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 17 and 44 recite additional abstract steps of obtaining additional information of the primary device or the secondary device. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) - the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” In combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 18 and 45 further provide descriptive information regarding the device orientation sensor status. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 19 and 46 further provide descriptive information regarding the battery status. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 20 and 47 further provide descriptive information regarding the location information. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 21 and 48 further provide descriptive information regarding the memory information. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 22 and 49 further provide descriptive information regarding the device location radio operation information. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 23 and 50 further provide descriptive information regarding the display status information. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 24 and 51 further provide descriptive information regarding the power up status information. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 25 and 52 further provide descriptive information regarding the audio status information. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claim 53 recite additional abstract steps of identifying one or more secondary devices not directly associated with the device owner, and presenting an incentive for the device owner to contact an owner of the one or more secondary devices not directly associated with the device owner to propose insurance or warranty coverage. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) - the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” In combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 54 and 79 recite additional abstract step of adjusting a monthly premium amount based on usage profiles of the primary device and the secondary device. The claim limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f) - the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” In combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 55 and 80 further provide descriptive information regarding the usage profiles information. The descriptive information does not change the process that defines the abstract idea of the independent claims. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Therefore, claims 1-14, 16-25, 28-41, 43-55 and 79-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14, 16-25, 28-41, 43-52, 54, 55, 79, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald et al. (US 2017/0315007 A1, hereinafter “Fitzgerald”) in view of Wooldridge et al. (US 2012/0029947 A1, hereinafter “Wooldridge”), and further in view of Silva et al., (US 20200265487 A1, hereinafter “Silva”).
Claims 1 and 28, Fitzgerald discloses a method and a system (Abstract and para. [0002], systems and methods for detecting fault conditions in mobile devices) comprising:
a primary device comprising mobile device (para. [0026], mobile device), the primary device comprising:
a processor in communication with a memory (para. [0026], “processor 810 coupled to a memory 820”);
a user interface in communication with the processor (para. [0026], “mobile device also includes a user interface 870 coupled to the processor 810”), the user interface including a touch-sensitive display and a data entry interface (Claim 1, para. [0011] and [0034] disclosing user interface includes a touch-sensitive display and a data entry interface);
a communications module in communication with the processor and configured to provide a communications interface to a third-party server (para. [0026] disclosing a communication module 830 comprises a wireless transceiver 840 for wirelessly communicating with one or more servers 860 and other entities. In [0044]-[0046] disclosing the host server can be controlled by third party), the third-party server further including a database, a server processor and a server memory (para. [0040]-[0042] disclosing the host server includes database performed by software/hardware system. Para. [0043], “The host server 860 may include one or more system processors that retrieve and execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory to control (at least partially) the operation of the host server 860.”);
wherein one or more of the memory of the primary device or the server memory includes instructions that when respectively executed by the processor or the server processor perform the steps of (para. [0027], “implemented through the processor 810 executing computer-readable instructions stored in the memory 820 of the mobile device 800. The memory 820 may store any computer-readable instructions and data, including software applications, user-installed or third-party-installed “apps,” applets, and embedded operating code.” Para. [0043], “The host server 860 may include one or more system processors that retrieve and execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory to control (at least partially) the operation of the host server 860.”):
presenting a primary device associated with a device owner for assessment of insurability and/or warrantability (para. [0008] disclosing a user that has a mobile device with an alleged fault condition may be requested to install an application on the alleged faulty mobile device to assess the claimed fault condition on the mobile device to ask insurance company to provide policy coverage for the mobile device. Para. [0054], “all or part of the FSTA and system implementation embodiments may be included in a library of apps utilized by entities that provide online quotes for insurance, device trade in, or mobile device diagnostics.”);
performing a diagnostic assessment of one or more features of a primary device presented by a device owner (para. [0054] disclosing performing fault state assessment on the device. Para. [0045] disclosing performing fault assessment via fault state test application (FSTA) installed on the mobile device to confirm that the device has incurred a fault that may be subject to an insurance claim);
analyzing diagnostic assessment results regarding the primary device and storing the analyzed results in a database record in the database, the database record associated with an identifier of the primary device (Para. [0044] and [0046] disclosing storing the result of the device test associated with mobile equipment identifier number);
identifying one or more secondary devices associated with the device owner (para. [0069] disclosing identifying and pairing a second mobile device associated with the user);
respectively associating a unique device identifier with each identified device and storing the respective device identifier and data regarding each respective identified device in the database record (Para. [0044] and [0046] disclosing storing the result of the device test associated with mobile equipment identifier number);
for each identified device, determine whether a diagnostic assessment should be performed, and if so, perform a diagnostic assessment of one or more device features of such identified device (para. [0054] disclosing performing fault state assessment on the device. Para. [0045] disclosing performing fault assessment via fault state test application (FSTA) installed on the mobile device to confirm that the device has incurred a fault that may be subject to an insurance claim), storing results of the diagnostic assessment in the database record associated with the respective device identifier (Para. [0044] and [0046] disclosing storing the result of the device test associated with mobile equipment identifier number)
installing a dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device (para. [0008] and [0027] disclosing installing software application on the mobile device);
detecting, automatically via the dynamic insurance evaluator application, secondary devices communicate with the primary device (para. [0031]-[0032] disclosing communication between mobile device and another mobile device. Para. [0044]-[0045] disclosing host server (i.e. secondary devices) may include mobile telephones, mobile computing devices, interactive voice response (IVR) systems, and any other suitable system and device to communicate with mobile device (i.e. primary device) via fault state test application installed on the mobile device);
Fitzgerald discloses the above-mentioned limitations. Fitzgerald suggests the system and method is to utilize apps by entities to provide online quotes for insurance on device trade in or mobile devices diagnostics.
The only difference between Fitzgerald and the claimed invention is that, Fitzgerald does not expressly teach performing a diagnostic assessment for a secondary device, storing the results of the diagnostic assessment in the database with associated identifier and presenting a list identifying the primary device and identified secondary devices along with respective options regarding insurance or warranty coverage to the primary owner.
Specifically, Fitzgerald fails to expressly teach (italic emphasis):
respectively associating a unique secondary device identifier with each identified secondary device and storing the respective secondary device identifier and data regarding each respective identified secondary device in the database record;
for each identified secondary device, determine whether a diagnostic assessment should be performed, and if so, perform a diagnostic assessment of one or more device features of such identified secondary device, storing results of the diagnostic assessment in the database record associated with the respective secondary device identifier;
respectively analyzing the database record the primary device diagnostic assessment and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to determine options regarding insurance or warranty coverage,
wherein analyzing the database record, the primary device diagnostic assessment, and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment further comprises:
comparing the primary device diagnostic assessment to neural network training data stored in the database record, the neural network training data including a plurality of images associated with an identified defect;
identifying a primary device defect by comparing the primary device diagnostic assessment to the plurality of images associated with the identified defect;
comparing each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to the neural network training data stored in the database record;
identifying a secondary device defect by comparing each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to the plurality of images associated with the identified defect; and
modifying the neural network training data stored in the database record to include the primary device diagnostic assessment and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment, and augmenting accuracy by modifying the neural network through training using the modified neural network training data to improve accuracy of recognition of the device defects for primary or secondary devices;
presenting a list identifying the primary device and identified secondary devices along with respective options regarding insurance or warranty coverage to the primary owner;
activating the dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device, such that the dynamic insurance evaluator application remains active and executes in the background of the primary device;
determining, automatically via the dynamic insurance evaluator application, insurance eligibility of the secondary devices that communicate with the primary device.
However, Wooldridge is in the analogous field of offering a protection policy for a mobile device, which specifically teaches,
respectively analyzing the database record the primary device diagnostic assessment and each identified device diagnostic assessment to determine options regarding insurance or warranty coverage; presenting a list identifying the primary device with option regarding insurance or warranty coverage to the primary owner (para. [0022]-[0023] determining and offering appropriate insurance policy for the mobile device based on the mobile device assessment result);
Wooldridge also teaches:
installing a dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device (para. [0010] and [0020] teaching application installed on the mobile device);
activating the dynamic insurance evaluator application on the primary device, such that the dynamic insurance evaluator application remains active and executes in the background of the primary device (para. [0010] and [0020] teaching the installed application on the mobile device conducts test in the background);
detecting, automatically via the dynamic insurance evaluator application, secondary devices communicate with the primary device (para. [0009]-[0011] teaching Step S112, which includes testing communication components, functions to evaluate the ability of the mobile device to communicate through available communication channels. Which specifically describes the use of test program on a desktop computer or other computing devices (i.e., mobile phone) verifies that communication can be achieved. Mobile device is representative of the primary device with application installed, and desktop computer or other computing device is representative of secondary device with test program (i.e., application) to detect communication is achieved);
determining, automatically via the dynamic insurance evaluator application, insurance eligibility of the secondary devices that communicate with the primary device (para. [0022] teaches if all the information passes, then the remote server, via the application, determines the eligibility of mobile device for an insurance policy based upon the test information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of for detecting mobile device fault condition using software operating on the mobile device to provide quote of insurance of Fitzgerald to include the feature of providing a list of insurance policy or warranty coverage to the user for the mobile device as taught by Wooldridge, for the motivation and benefit of providing revenue/value to companies that provide protection insurance policy or warranty coverage for a mobile device at any period of possessing the mobile based on the assessment of risk in the insuring the mobile device (para. [0003]). This creates opportunity for insurance company to sell more insurance policy on mobile device not just after at the date of sale of the mobile device but at any time after the sale of the device as long the mobile device is assessed and determined risk of insure for sales opportunity and potential profit. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar insurance offering field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same insurance offering related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wooldridge, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Woodridge teaches the detection and communication with secondary devices with application installed. However, the combination of Fitzgerald and Wooldridge do not expressly teach performing a diagnostic assessment for a secondary device, storing the results of the diagnostic assessment in the database with associated identifier and presenting a list identifying a secondary device with options regarding insurance or warranty coverage.
Specifically, the combination fails to expressly teach (italic emphasis):
respectively associating a unique secondary device identifier with each identified secondary device and storing the respective secondary device identifier and data regarding each respective identified secondary device in the database record;
for each identified secondary device, determine whether a diagnostic assessment should be performed, and if so, perform a diagnostic assessment of one or more device features of such identified secondary device, storing results of the diagnostic assessment in the database record associated with the respective secondary device identifier;
respectively analyzing the database record the primary device diagnostic assessment and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to determine options regarding insurance or warranty coverage; and
presenting a list identifying identified secondary devices along with respective options regarding insurance or warranty coverage to the primary owner.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to store device identifier data of identified device in the database record; determine a diagnostic assessment to be performed for one or more device features of the identified device; storing the results of the diagnostic assessment in the database record with the respective device identifier; analyze the database record of the device diagnostic assessment to determine options regarding insurance or warranty coverage; and present the option regarding insurance or warranty coverage to the primary owner, made obvious by the combination of Fitzgerald and Wooldridge, but only to perform the same steps for a second/secondary device by the same system and method, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. It has been obvious and the result is entirely predictable for the system and method of Fitzgerald for providing insurance options for primary device and a second set of insurance options for the secondary device based diagnostic assessment to perform the known technique of Fitzgerald with Woodridge in the same way for the predictable result.
Still, the combination of Fitzgerald and Wooldridge do not explicitly teach:
wherein analyzing the database record, the primary device diagnostic assessment, and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment further comprises:
comparing the primary device diagnostic assessment to neural network training data stored in the database record, the neural network training data including a plurality of images associated with an identified defect;
identifying a primary device defect by comparing the primary device diagnostic assessment to the plurality of images associated with the identified defect;
comparing each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to the neural network training data stored in the database record;
identifying a secondary device defect by comparing each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to the plurality of images associated with the identified defect; and
modifying the neural network training data stored in the database record to include the primary device diagnostic assessment and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment, and augmenting accuracy by modifying the neural network through training using the modified neural network training data to improve accuracy of recognition of the device defects for primary or secondary devices.
However, Silva is directed to systems and method for evaluating the physical and/or cosmetic condition of electronic devices using machine learning techniques, which specifically teaches:
wherein analyzing the database record, the primary device diagnostic assessment, and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment further comprises: comparing the primary device diagnostic assessment to neural network training data stored in the database record, the neural network training data including a plurality of images associated with an identified defect (Claim 13 and para. [0066]-[0070] teaching the use of neural network to analyze image features of the devices to determine/evaluate the devices condition based on training set of the images of defects. Para. [0062] and [0064] and Fig. 11 teaching the neural networks can be trained using pre-collected images and stored);
identifying a primary device defect by comparing the primary device diagnostic assessment to the plurality of images associated with the identified defect (Claim 13, and para. [0041], [0066]-[0070]) teaching the use of neural network to analyze image features of the device to determine/evaluate the device condition based on training set of the images of defects);
comparing each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to the neural network training data stored in the database record (Claim 13, and para. [0041], [0066]-[0070]) teaching the use of neural network to analyze image features of the devices to determine/evaluate the device condition based on training set of the images of defects. In para. [0041], the step can be performed for a large number of consumer devices);
identifying a secondary device defect by comparing each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment to the plurality of images associated with the identified defect (Claim 13, and para. [0041], [0066]-[0070]) teaching the use of neural network to analyze image features of the device to determine/evaluate the device condition based on training set of the images of defects. In para. [0041], the step can be performed for a large number of consumer devices); and
modifying the neural network training data stored in the database record to include the primary device diagnostic assessment and each identified secondary device diagnostic assessment (para. [0024], [0050], [0059], [0065], and Claim 19 teaching the further training of the neural network with specific image and user input from the evaluation), and augmenting accuracy by modifying the neural network through training using the modified neural network training data to improve accuracy of recognition of the device defects for primary or secondary devices (Silva para. [0024], “the use of ANN(s) as described herein contributes to various advantages and improvements (e.g., in computational efficiency, detection accuracy, system robustness, etc.) in processing images of electronic devices.” Para. [0059], “Experimental results have demonstrated that the accuracy of neural network(s) in determining cosmetic defects can achieve 91%, which exceeds average human capacity (accuracy around 89.9%).” Silva teaches the purpose and result of using the training (in para. [0050] and [0065]) its neural network is to achieve high accuracy in detecting defects, which in para. [0024] and [0059] explicitly states the goal and improvement of using neural network is improvement and achieving better accuracy in detection (recognition) of defects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Fitzgerald for providing insurance quote based on detection of mobile device condition using software operating on the mobile device to include the feature of use of neural network training data for comparison and identification of defect as taught by Silva for the motivation and benefit of replacing the basic analysis software with a self-training neural network for a more accurate, consistent, and improved analysis result that is also more scalable when needed at different geographical location (para. [0047]). Therefore, it would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining these known elements for their intended purposes.
Claims 2 and 29, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein the primary device is one of a smartphone, a mobile electronic device, a desktop computer, a tablet, or a smart vehicle (para. [0003] and [0007] disclosing mobile device includes cellular phone, smart watches, and laptop computer).
Claims 3 and 30, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein a secondary device includes one or more of a modem, a router, a smart appliance, an IoT device, a smart hub, a home alarm, a smart TV a tablet, a streaming device, a desktop computer, a computer peripheral, a printer, a smart charger, a smart watch, smart personal devices, and a vehicle (para. [0069] disclosing secondary mobile device. Para. [0003] and [0007] disclosing mobile device includes smart watches, IoT device, smart mobile devices, and laptop computers).
Claims 4 and 31, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein the primary device is a mobile smartphone (para. [0007], mobile phone), and further comprising installing an app on the primary device to perform the diagnostic assessment of one or more features of the primary device (para. [0007], [0044], [0045], and [0054] disclosing FSTA app installed on the mobile device performing the diagnostic assessment of features of the mobile device).
Claims 5 and 32, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
further comprising performing the diagnostic assessment of one or more features of the primary device in a remote server communicatively coupled to the primary device (para. [0044], [0045], and [0054]).
Claims 6 and 33, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein a secondary device is a mobile smartphone, and further comprising remotely installing an app on the secondary device (para. [0069] disclosing second mobile device with FSTA app installed).
However, Fitzgerald does not expressly teach performing diagnostic assessment of one or more features of the secondary device.
Fitzgerald does disclose, perform the diagnostic assessment of one or more features of the device (para. [0045] and [0054]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform diagnostic assessment of one or more features of the device utilizing an app installed on the mobile device, made obvious by Fitzgerald, but only to perform the same steps for a second/secondary device by the same system and method, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. It has been obvious and the result is entirely predictable for the system and method of Fitzgerald for performing the step for a primary device and can perform the same step for a secondary device in the same way by the known technique of Fitzgerald with Woodridge for intended and predictable result.
Claims 7 and 34, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
scanning a network that is communicatively coupled to the primary device and itemizing devices found included in the network (Para. [0032] disclosing using network connection such as LAN or WAN connection to monitor whether a communication link between the mobile device and companion device is intact, as well as with any number of other devices);
contacting a mobile network operator providing service to the primary device, and obtaining, from the mobile network operator, a list of devices in a group service plan with the primary device (para. [0048]-[0052] disclosing contacting a Mobile Network Operator that offers services to renew an extend the service agreement);
manually entering, by the device owner, information regarding the one or more secondary devices (para. [0034] disclosing manually entering information regarding the mobile device); and
sending an email or text message to an account accessible by a secondary device (para. [0037] disclosing mobile device may receive messages through the mobile device), and prompting a user of the secondary device to click on a link to provide information about the secondary device (para. [0048] and [0052] disclosing receiving email to the buyer/owner for confirmation in providing information about the mobile device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to transmit information and enter information on a mobile device, made obvious by Fitzgerald, but only to perform the same steps for a second/secondary device by the same system and method, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. It has been obvious and the result is entirely predictable for the system and method of Fitzgerald for performing the step for a primary device and can perform the same step for a secondary device in the same way by the known technique of Fitzgerald with Woodridge for intended and predictable result.
Claims 8 and 35, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein performing a diagnostic assessment of one or more device features of an identified secondary device includes requesting the secondary device perform a self-test; and receiving results of the self-test (para. [0054] disclosing performing fault state assessment on the device. Para. [0044]-[0045] disclosing performing fault assessment via fault state test application (FSTA) installed on the mobile device to confirm that the device has incurred a fault, which is a self-test, transmitted to the host server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform diagnostic assessment of one or more features of the device utilizing an app installed on the mobile device, made obvious by Fitzgerald, but only to perform the same steps for a second/secondary device by the same system and method, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. It has been obvious and the result is entirely predictable for the system and method of Fitzgerald for performing the step for a primary device and can perform the same step for a secondary device in the same way by the known technique of Fitzgerald with Woodridge for intended and predictable result.
Claims 9 and 36, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Wooldridge further teaches,
further comprising prompting the device owner to select coverage options from presented coverage options for each of the primary device and secondary devices, and storing the selections in the database record (Wooldridge, para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of for detecting mobile device fault condition using software operating on the mobile device to provide quote of insurance of Fitzgerald to include the feature of providing a list of insurance policy or warranty coverage to the user for the device owner to select coverage option for the devices and storing the selected option in record as taught by Wooldridge, for the motivation and benefit of providing revenue/value to companies that provide protection insurance policy or warranty coverage for a mobile device at any period of possessing the mobile based on the assessment of risk in the insuring the mobile device (para. [0003]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar insurance offering field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same insurance offering related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wooldridge, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 10 and 37, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Wooldridge further teaches,
wherein presenting a list further comprises computing and displaying to the device owner a total monthly premium for elected insurance or warranty options (Wooldridge, para. [0023] teaches presenting protection policy and purchasing of the protection policy from within the application. The office asserts Wooldridge teaches the feature of presenting a list and displaying to the device owner within the app of a purchase option to be made for a payment. It would have been obvious to include a total monthly premium as the non-functional descriptive information which does not change the functional feature of the invention of presenting and displaying the information within application on the mobile device).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of for detecting mobile device fault condition using software operating on the mobile device to provide quote of insurance of Fitzgerald to include the feature of presenting a list of insurance policy or warranty coverage to the user for the device owner to select coverage option and make a payment for the coverage option as taught by Wooldridge, for the motivation and benefit of providing revenue/value to companies that provide protection insurance policy or warranty coverage for a mobile device at any period of possessing the mobile based on the assessment of risk in the insuring the mobile device (para. [0003]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar insurance offering field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same insurance offering related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wooldridge, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 11 and 38, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
further comprising analyzing one of the primary device and a secondary device and updating the database record to reflect an updated analysis (para. [0044]).
Claims 12 and 39, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
further comprising assessing respective options regarding insurance or warranty coverage and presenting an updated list of options to the primary user (para. [0044], [0045], and [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to assess respective options regarding insurance or warranty coverage and presenting an updated list of options to the primary user, made obvious by the combination of Fitzgerald and Wooldridge, but only to perform the same steps for a second time or “re-assessing” by the same system and method, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. It has been obvious and the result is entirely predictable for the system and method of Fitzgerald for performing the step for a primary device and can perform the same step for a secondary device in the same way by the known technique of Fitzgerald with Woodridge for intended and predictable result.
Claims 13 and 40, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Wooldridge further teaches,
wherein options regarding insurance or warranty coverage options include cost of coverage, policy terms, premium payment amounts, claim caps for identified device feature repairs, device features included in coverage, device features excluded from coverage, and cost to obtain additional and/or enhanced coverage (Abstract, claim 1, claim 17 teaching the providing protection policy and cost of the policy).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of for detecting mobile device fault condition using software operating on the mobile device to provide quote of insurance of Fitzgerald to include the feature of presenting a list of insurance policy or warranty coverage to the user for the device owner with the cost of the coverage option as taught by Wooldridge, for the motivation and benefit of providing revenue/value to companies that provide protection insurance policy or warranty coverage for a mobile device at any period of possessing the mobile based on the assessment of risk in the insuring the mobile device (para. [0003]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar insurance offering field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same insurance offering related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wooldridge, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 14 and 41, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Wooldridge further teaches,
wherein determining whether a diagnostic assessment should be performed further comprises determining that a diagnostic assessment for a secondary device may be executed at a future time; and offering insurance or warranty coverage at an enhanced price until such assessment may be conducted (Based on the app. specification description in para. [0040], “diagnostics may be automatically installed on secondary devices and run at a future time when such execution is most desirable (such as in the background in a period of standby status, or when a current user of such device is prompted to begin a test (such as a mirror-based display test).” Wooldridge teaches similar feature in para. [0010], “The testing is preferably conducted immediately preceding enrollment in an insurance program, but the testing may alternatively have a waiting period. The testing may additionally include conducting extended background testing S118.” “Testing may include any suitable combination of the described tests. The testing of a particular component may be explicit, wherein the application provides instructions and preferably guides the user through an interaction. The interactions are preferably designed like a puzzle, game, test question or any suitable format completed by the user. There may additionally be steps wherein the user lets the application complete background operations.” Which teaching the performing of diagnostic assessment after a waiting period or future time. Then in para. [0023] and claims 16-17 teaching the offering of protection policy with cost increased based on the future assessment of the battery condition has degraded).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of for detecting mobile device fault condition using software operating on the mobile device to provide quote of insurance of Fitzgerald to include the feature of wherein determining whether a diagnostic assessment should be performed further comprises determining that a diagnostic assessment for a secondary device may be executed at a future time; and offering insurance or warranty coverage at an enhanced price until such assessment may be conducted as taught by Wooldridge, for the motivation and benefit of providing revenue/value to companies that provide protection insurance policy or warranty coverage for a mobile device at any period of possessing the mobile based on the assessment of risk in the insuring the mobile device (para. [0003]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar insurance offering field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same insurance offering related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wooldridge, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 16 and 43, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein an identifier of the primary device may include one or more of: a device's make, model, IMEI, phone number, device ID, device tag, account number, serial number, and a device fingerprint value (para. [0046], electronic serial number, international mobile equipment identifier number, IMEI number, international mobile subscriber identity number, and user identity module identifier).
Claims 17 and 44, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein performing a diagnostic assessment of one of the primary device or a secondary device includes obtaining one or more of device identifying information, device orientation sensor status, battery status, branding labeling information, location information, memory information, device local radio operation, display status, housing status; device power up status, and audio status (para. [0067] disclosing performing analysis using FSTA app and report status to user. Para. [0010], [0035], [0054], [0061]-[0067] disclosing measurement from magnetometer, accelerometer, gyroscope, which is device orientation sensor status. Para. [0026] and [0038] disclosing battery status and limit. Para. [0026] and [0041], disclosing location information including GPS information and location data services information. Para. [0046] disclosing memory capacity which is memory information. para. [0047]-[0049] and [0054]-[0055] disclosing display status).
Claims 18 and 45, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 17 and the system claim 44. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein device orientation sensor status may include one or more of an operational status and a current value of a device's magnetometer, accelerometer, gyroscope, pressure sensor, or a sensor used by the device in obtaining its physical orientation (Claim 7, para. [0010], [0035], [0061]-[0062], disclosing the measuring of magnetometer, gyroscope, and accelerometers).
Claims 19 and 46, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 17 and the system claim 44. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein battery status may include one or more of information regarding whether a device's battery is charged; whether the battery is capable of holding a charge; an estimated capacity comparison to original specification of a battery; a battery maximum and/or minimum level, and a current charging type (para. [0026] and [0038] disclosing battery status and limit).
Claims 20 and 47, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 17 and the system claim 44. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein location information may include one or more of locale indicators; GPS information; location data services information; connected wireless tower information; and visited Wi-Fi domains (para. [0026] and [0041], disclosing location information including GPS information and location data services information).
Claims 21 and 48, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 17 and the system claim 44. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein memory information includes one or more of: an average memory usage of a device; a maximum and minimum memory usage of a device; storage capacity of a device; storage used by a device; internal memory/storage of a device; and external memory card status and/or capacity of a device (para. [0046] disclosing memory capacity).
Claims 22 and 49, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 17 and the system claim 44. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein device local radio operation includes one or more of: operational status and information regarding whether a Wi-Fi connection is operational not, a device uptime figure, an amount of data sent or received through Wi-Fi; Bluetooth operational status; and NFC status (para. [0031]-[0032] disclosing device local radio operation including Bluetooth and wireless connection operational and connected).
Claims 23 and 50, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 17 and the system claim 44. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein display status information includes one or more test results regarding whether: a screen of the mobile device is cracked or not; a location of a crack on a screen of a device; a size and extent of a crack on a display of a mobile device; a current brightness level of a display; an indicator whether an LCD is functioning (para. [0047]-[0049] and [0054]-[0055] disclosing display status information including location of a crack and indicator whether LCD is functioning).
Claims 24 and 51, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 17 and the system claim 44. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein power up status includes one or more of whether a mobile device powers up in a predetermined period of time, and whether a power button of a mobile device is operational (para. [0032] disclosing power connection)
Claims 25 and 52, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 17 and the system claim 44. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein audio status may include whether a volume up button or down button works within predetermined ranges; whether a speaker is outputting an audio signal at an expected volume level, whether a microphone is receiving audio inputs with acceptable gain, whether a microphone is receiving audio inputs at predetermined frequencies, and whether a speaker of the mobile device is producing audio signals at desired amplitudes at a range of frequencies (para. [0034]).
Claims 54 and 79, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the system claim 28 and the method claim 1. Wooldridge further teaches,
further comprising dynamically adjusting a monthly premium amount based on usage profiles of the primary device (para. [0020], Claim 17, teaching increasing/adjusting cost of protection policy or monthly premium amount based on usage profile such as battery capacity degradation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of for detecting mobile device fault condition using software operating on the mobile device to provide quote of insurance of Fitzgerald to include the feature of dynamically adjusting a monthly premium amount based on usage profiles of the primary device as taught by Wooldridge, for the motivation and benefit of providing revenue/value to companies that provide protection insurance policy or warranty coverage for a mobile device at any period of possessing the mobile based on the assessment of risk in the insuring the mobile device (para. [0003]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar insurance offering field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same insurance offering related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wooldridge, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 55 and 80, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the system claim 54 and the method claim 79. Fitzgerald further discloses,
wherein the usage profiles include parameters related to risk of loss, damage, or aging of any of the primary device or secondary devices (para. [0041] disclosing usage profile includes parameters related to risk of loss).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald et al (US 2017/0315007 A1, hereinafter “Fitzgerald”) in view of Wooldridge et al (US 2012/0029947 A1, hereinafter “Wooldridge”) in view of Silva et al. (US 20200265487 A1, hereinafter “Silva”), and further in view of Price et al (US 10395221 B1, hereinafter, “Price”).
Claim 53, the combination of Fitzgerald, Wooldridge, and Silva make obvious of the method claim 1 and the system claim 28. The combination fails to expressly teach,
further comprising: identifying one or more secondary devices not directly associated with the device owner, and presenting an incentive for the device owner to contact an owner of the one or more secondary devices not directly associated with the device owner to propose insurance or warranty coverage.
However, Price is directed to system and method of providing rewards to encourage device care covered by warranty, which specifically teaches,
further comprising: identifying one or more secondary devices not directly associated with the device owner, and presenting an incentive for the device owner to contact an owner of the one or more secondary devices not directly associated with the device owner to propose insurance or warranty coverage (Col. 17 Ln. 24-31 and Col. 24 Ln. 50-Col. 25 Ln. 13 teaches identifying the electronic device does not met requirement threshold is presented with an incentive coupon for the offering of warranty/insurance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of for detecting mobile device fault condition using software operating on the mobile device to provide quote of insurance of Fitzgerald to include the feature of identifying one or more secondary devices not directly associated with the device owner, and presenting an incentive for the device owner to contact an owner of the one or more secondary devices not directly associated with the device owner to propose insurance or warranty coverage as taught by Price, for the motivation and benefit of providing revenue/value to insurance companies from incentive coupon for electronic device that do not insurance or warranty coverage (Col. 1 Ln. 6-19). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar insurance offering field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same insurance offering related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Price, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection
The Applicant's remarks are fully directed to amended claim limitations, therefore, deemed moot. However, in the spirit of compact prosecution, the examiner would still like to address the remarks.
On pages 24-26, the Applicant asserts, “the benefits of amended independent claims 1 and 28 now recite "augmenting accuracy by modifying the neural network through training using the modified neural network training data to improve accuracy of recognition of device defects for primary or secondary devices." Thus, performing diagnostic testing the diverse collection of real world devices that may be identified by the primary devices ultimately improves the functionality and accuracy of the claimed invention to provide accurate and appropriate results, saving time, money, and providing more comprehensive protection of a broad range of devices.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Applicant cited MPEP 2106.05(a). The Examiner would like to provide the complete citations with underline emphasis: “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” This is also recited in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
The specification in para. [0089] merely provided a conclusory description for the storing of neural network training data and may be modified to improve accuracy of recognition of device defects. The Applicant’s specification provided a conclusory statement for the use of neural network training to be modified would produce the intended and expected result of “improve accuracy of recognition of the device defects.” Yet, the specification does not actually provide explanation for the technical details for how the accuracy of recognition of the device defects are improved other than the assumption that it can be accomplished by the application of neural network training. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitation only recites comparing and identifying diagnostic assessment information with previously stored neural network training data and modifying the neural network training data in a generic way in a conclusory manner. As indicated in MPEP 2106.05(f), “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” (underline emphasis added)
The Applicant’s the specification para. [0002]-[0004] provided a business problem and incentive for mitigating risks for devices by offering insurance coverage. The application is not focused on a technological problem (i.e., issue that arose from the technology). The Examiner asserts the claimed invention is directed to business reasons for using the claimed computer system on the abstract idea for presenting and offering insurance coverage policy for electronic devices. The Applicant fails to provide persuasive argument for the “improvement to other technology or technical field,” other than the desired result of “provide accurate and appropriate results, saving time, money, and providing more comprehensive protection of a broad range of devices.”
That is, as reflected in Enfish, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements (improvement of the technology or technical field), on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information), on the other. The alleged advantages that the Applicant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities or any machinery but instead relate to an alleged improvement in transmitting, analyzing, comparing, determining or presenting information for a desirable result, which a computer is used as a mere tool in its ordinary capacity, see MPEP 2106.05(f). To further clarify, the Applicant reflected a business need/reason of the abstract idea for the collecting and analyzing assessment for providing insurance warranty coverage to customer. The computer and software, itself is merely used “applied” for the expected result of convenience and time/cost saving. The claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology of the computer functionalities other than, by using the additional elements of the computer system, desired result can be produced without a doubt and concern to technological details for how it is done. That is, the computer system itself or specific technology is not improved in anyway other than being applied as a tool/instrument for the judicial exception (abstract idea).
In numerous court decisions found the use of computer to perform computer process in a convenience (e.g., more efficient, faster, and etc.) has been held not be an “inventive concept” or specific improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection
The remarks have been fully considered, however, they are found to be unpersuasive.
Per pages 27-29, regarding to remarks for assessment of secondary devices.
The remarks are noted, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 103 rejection above, Wooldridge is introduced to teach a complete system for offering an insurance policy for a mobile device. A person ordinary skilled in the art would recognize the significant and obvious way to enhance the commercial value and practice to extend the insurance coverage for multiple devices owned by the same user, which is a common business practice known as policy bundling or multi-device policy. The claims do not recite distinct or different functional steps other than performing the same functional steps for secondary device. The Applicant argues that applying the diagnostic process to secondary devices produces a “new and unexpected result” of providing “comprehensive protection” for previously uninsured devices. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not a technical result but rather the intended and entirely predictable business outcome of extending an insurance process to more items (devices). The technical process itself for diagnosing an electronic device to determine its condition remains the same for one or more devices. The application of a known process of diagnostic method of Fitzgerald to a new but similar item (secondary electronic device) for the same purpose of risk assessment for insurance is not an unexpected result. The Applicant also argues against “mere duplication.” The instant case is not mere physical duplication but rather the application of known process but to additional electronic device. Such duplication is obvious and the result is entirely predictable that the system and method for providing insurance options for primary device and a second set of insurance options for the secondary devices, both are presented to the same primary owner. Such step has been conventional and obvious design for information/data presentation in commercial field. For example, when shopping, a customer buying a shirt and a pair of pants, the system would perform the same checkout process in the same checkout screen with a single and consolidated list of identifying both items along with system-analyzed result of identifiers and prices, for the single user to review. Therefore, the combination of Fitzgerald and Wooldridge teaches a system and method for assessing a device and generating insurance option for its owner, with legal precedent of In re Harza (Duplication of Parts) teaching the duplication of the same process for a second device owned by the same person is obvious, leading to the predictable result of two sets of options for insurance/warranty for the same owner.
Per page 29, regarding to the amended limitation of augmenting accuracy.
The Examiner asserts the argument is directed to amended claim limitation, which is deemed moot. The Office Action above has addressed the amended claim limitation with Silva. Silva not only teaches the use of neural network but also explicitly teaches the purpose and result of the feedback loop in para. [0024], [0044], [0050] and [0059].
Per page 29, regarding Hindsight.
The Examiner asserts the remark regarding hindsight relies on conclusory statements. In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner asserts the rationale for combining the references is not based on hindsight but on a clear reasoning and rationale as required by In re Kahn.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Nguyen (US 20160225036 A1) is directed to a system and method for self-performing a cosmetic evaluation of an electronic device.
Fitzgerald et al. (US 20140200929 A1) is directed to systems and methods for dynamically assessing and mitigating risk of an insured entity. An entity that provides insurance may, in various embodiments, use applications installed on mobile devices to monitor information that may reduce or mitigate fraudulent insurance claims.
Fitzgerald et al. (US 20120237908 A1) is directed to systems and methods for monitoring and/or managing a device with respect to a rule or set of rules and/or altering the functionality of the device in response. In one embodiment, a method includes monitoring a mobile user's equipment with respect to a rule. The method also includes applying at least one consequence to the mobile user equipment when the rule is at least one of followed or violated. The at least one consequence comprises at least one of a reward or a punishment. The at least one consequence pertains to use of the mobile user equipment.
Dion et al. (US 20220262189 A1) is directed to enhanced evaluation of pre-owned electronic devices related services are described. Example evaluation devices (e.g., kiosks etc.) and techniques for enhanced evaluation are described. An example evaluation device includes an evaluation area in which a previously-owned electronic device (e.g., smartphone etc.) is arranged with its camera configured to capture images of the evaluation area. An example apparatus includes a previously-owned electronic device arranged with its camera configured to capture images of another previously-owned electronic device within an evaluation area. Other example implementations include detecting microdefects and/or micro-differences for identifying a device; based on an evaluation of a device, providing any of a repair quote, an insurance or warranty quote, an insurance or warranty claim, a certification, or a promise to purchase.
Dwivedi et al. (US 20170256051 A1) is directed to determining a condition of one or more device screens for pricing.
Allen et al. (US 10713726 B1) is directed to a system may include sensors associated with structures, such that the sensors acquire data sets associated with the structures. The processor receives the data sets from the sensors, determines environmental conditions associated with the structures over a period of time, and determines a structural condition associated with one of the structures based on the data sets, for insurance policy determination.
NPL (IPCOM00022760D, <https://priorart.ip.com/IPCOM/000227601>) is directed to system, method, apparatus, and computer program product for insurance and replacement of a mobile device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan C Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626