DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 10, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
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.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter over Prior Art
Examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Claims 1-14, 16-25, 28-41, 43-55, 79 and 80.
The closest prior art found are:
Fitzgerald et al. (US 2017/0315007 A1)
Wooldridge et al. (US 2012/0029947 A1)
Silva et al., (US 20200265487 A1)
The combination of the above references does not explicitly teach the specific configuration of: installing and activating a dynamic insurance evaluator application on primary device that remains active and executes in the background of the primary device to automatically detect secondary device that communicate with the primary device; performing diagnostic assessments on both the primary device and discovery of second device; and modifying the neural network training data stored in the database record to include the diagnostic assessments of both the primary device and each identified secondary device.
specifically, the limitations 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 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., (i.e. in the particular manner it is claimed in the context of the whole claim is not disclosed, taught or suggested in the prior art(s)).
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are found to be allowable over the prior art of record.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor fairly and reasonably teach the independent claims 1 and 28.
Examiner notes that while applicant has overcome the art of record, the application is not in condition for allowance, given the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection
The remarks have been fully considered, however, are found to be unpersuasive.
On page 24, the Applicant conflates the distinct statutory requirements of 101 and 103. The fact that a prior art reference (Silva) provides a detailed, technical implementation of a neural network does not cure the fact that the Applicant’s claims recite the use of a neural network at a high, functional level of generality. The Subject matter eligibility under 101 is evaluated based on the language of the claims themselves, not on the disclosures of the prior art. As drafted, the claims recite the result of “augmenting accuracy” and the generic function of “modifying the neural network training data,” but they fail to recite the specific, technical means/mechanism by which the step is accomplished (e.g., a specific network architecture, a specific weighting algorithm, or a specific mathematical transformation). The Applicant does not want to cite the applicant’s specification for the support but rather use a prior art disclosure to state the claimed limitation for the use of neural network training to improve accuracy is obvious, indicates the applicant admits the claim limitation, “modifying the neural network training… to improve accuracy” is a well-known and obvious function that does not require technical detail for how it perform but the result can be accomplished within the computer environment. The only support that Examiner can find in the specification is from paragraph [0089], “The database 880 may also store neural network training data, wherein exemplary images of defects in mobile devices are correspondingly associated with identified defect classes, outputs or states. The neural network training data may be augmented or otherwise modified to improve accuracy of recognition of device defects. Further, database 880 may store results of analysis of the health and operation of mobile device 800, along with identifying information and historical operational information associate with mobile device 800. In this manner, operational analysis of the mobile device may be tracked and analyzed over time by server 860, and trends identified that may indicate pending failure of at least one component of mobile device 800.” The specification and the claim only stated the neural network training data can be augmented or modified to improve accuracy of the recognition of the device defects. The specification does not provide the details of the training is done or how the modification of the training data to be performed to improve accuracy of recognition. Merely claiming a desired result without the technical means to achieve it is a hallmark of an abstract idea. See Customedia Techs., LLC v Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359 (Fed Cir. 2020).
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 Customedia and 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).
On page 24, the Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process and fundamental economic practices because a human cannot “modify neural network training weights.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are viewed as a whole. The focus of the claims is evaluating the condition of items to determine options for insurance or warranty coverage. This is directed to a mental process (evaluation) and fundamental economic practices of a method of organizing human activity (risk mitigation and insurance writing). The step of visually inspecting (device diagnostic assessment) an deice to identify defects is a mental process of observation and evaluation that human have been performed for centuries before the invention of computer. The automating this human visual inspection using a generic “neural network” does not change the abstract idea of the claims.
On page 25, step 2A, prong 2, the Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they recite a “self-improving technical system” that improves the technology itself, citing Enfish an McRo.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. To qualify as an improvement to computer technology under Step 2A, prong 2, the claims must recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem, not merely the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims simply invoke a generic “neural network” to automate the human task of visual inspection. The specification at paragraph [0089] merely states that training data “may be augmented or otherwise modified to improve accuracy,” providing no technical details on the network system or training algorithms. Using a generic, off the shelf machine learning tool to automate a known process is a mere “apply it” step. It does not improve the functioning of the computer itself.
Applicant argues the background application is a specific technical architecture. However, in the context of the claim, the background application is merely performing automated data gathering (detecting communicating devices) and data transmission. The Federal Circuit court has repeatedly held that gathering data, routing data, and outputting data are conventional computer functions that do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See Electric Power Group., LLC v. Alstom S.A. (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract).
Unlike McRo, the current claims do not recite specific, unconventional rules that prevent human subjectivity; the claims merely recite the generic machine learning steps of “comparing” to training data and “modifying” the training data. Additionally, the claims are not similar to Enfish, DDR holdings and Bascom.
On page 26, step 2B, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not integrate it into a practical application under step 2A, the analysis proceeds to step 2B.
Considering the claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Presenting a device, performing an assessment, and determining insurance options are the abstract idea itself.
Using a neural network to identify defects is the use of a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea.
The dynamic insurance evaluator application executing in the background merely adds conventional computer functions (automated data gathering and network communication) to the abstract idea.
Adding the conventional computer components (computer processor, app, database, generic neural network) to automate the fundamental economic practice of insurance underwiring does not transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of assessing items/device of assessing items for insurance coverage, implemented using generic computer functions and generic machine learning concepts, without reciting a specific technical improvement to the computer itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection
The remarks on page 27-31 are found persuasive and the 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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
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
Prosecution Insights