DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 03/23/2026
Claim 18 is previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance. The double patenting rejection is maintained and a terminal disclaimer is required.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant argues step 2A prong 2 starting on page 9 of the response.
Applicant argues that the specification teaches an improvement to technology by citing paragraphs [0003], [0016], [0018], and [0033], specifically arguing the crash detection, automotive obtaining transmitting of data from the vehicle to a communication system, and suing the data to compare to similar vehicles having similar crashes. Applicant then argues that the claims reflect the improvement detailed in the specification with elements including "receiving, by one or more processors from one or more sensors located in a damaged vehicle involved in a crash, crash information of the damaged vehicle ... the crash information collected by the one or more sensors, including an accelerometer, coupled to the damaged vehicle and the computing device, the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to detecting the crash." and "analyzing, by the one or more processors, the crash information with respective collision data of a vehicle type that includes or is similar to the vehicle type of the damaged vehicle, the analyzing including comparing at least one of a velocity or an acceleration included in the vehicle operating information to vehicle operating characteristics indicated by the respective collision data of the vehicle type," "receiving, by the one or more processors, a cost of repair associated with the damaged vehicle from a treatment facility," "comparing, by the one or more processors, the cost of repair associated with the damaged vehicle to the cost estimate, the cost estimate based on one or more damaged vehicle parts determined by at least one of the velocity or the acceleration included in the vehicle operating information," and "generating an alert to vehicle insurance personnel when the cost of repair from the treatment facility exceeds the cost estimate by more than a threshold value, (Response at 10-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited elements amount to collecting data from sensors, analyzing data and comparing the collected data to data from a database, which is similar to "iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;" (MPEP 2106.05(c)) which is not sufficient to show improvement to technology. Therefore, the argued elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues “recited claim elements do not gather and analyze information using conventional techniques. For example, and as explained in paragraph [0003] of the specification, the conventional technique and practice is that vehicle damage estimates are typically made after the vehicle is brought to a location where an appraisal or assessment of the damage is made. Conventional techniques and practices do not include any sensors located in a damaged vehicle involved in a crash, crash information of the damaged vehicle. . . the crash information collected by the one or more sensors, including an accelerometer, coupled to the damaged vehicle and the computing device, the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to detecting the crash, as recited in amended claim 1, for example, let alone the other features of amended claim 1. Thus, for at least these reasons as well, amended claim 1 does not recite elements using conventional techniques, but instead recites new features having a specific improvement amounting to significantly more than an abstract idea.” (Response at 12-13)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued improvement is directed to insurance appraisal and mitigating risk of fraud by determine a cost estimate to repair a vehicle to a cost of repair of the vehicle. As such the claims are related to insurance as and therefore fundamental economic practice and thus are abstract.
Applicant further argues amended claim 1 is comparable to Example 42, specifically “amended claim 1 of the present application generates vehicle damage assessments and shares updates regarding a damaged vehicle in an improved manner. In particular, crash information collected by sensors, including an accelerometer, is automatically transmitted to one or more processors in response to a computing device in a vehicle detecting a crash. This crash information is then compared with collision data in the specific manner recited by amended claim 1. In response to determining that the cost of repair from the treatment facility exceeds the cost estimate, the one or more processors generate an alert for vehicle insurance personnel. Vehicle insurance personnel are therefore informed of possible insurance fraud detected based on sensor data automatically transmitted to the system.” (Response at 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Example 42 is considered allowable because the claim “allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.” However, the current claims do not standardize a format, automatically generate a message, or transmit a message to all users. Instead, the instant claims perform the abstract idea of processing a loan transaction and upon approval of the loan distribute the funds. Therefore, Example 42 does not apply.
Therefore for at least the reasons stated above the arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments are unpersuasive.
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 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents a fundamental economic practice of “detecting fraud in vehicle insurance claims”
A method for detecting fraud in vehicle insurance claims, the method executed in part by one or more processors programed to perform the method, the method comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors from a computing device located in a damaged vehicle involved in a crash, crash information of the damaged vehicle, the crash information including vehicle operating information of the damaged vehicle, the crash information collected by one or more sensors, including an accelerometer, coupled to the damaged vehicle and to the computing device, the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to detecting the crash;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the crash information with respective collision data of a vehicle type that includes or is similar to the vehicle type of the damaged vehicle, the analyzing including comparing at least one of a velocity or an acceleration included in the vehicle operating information to vehicle operating characteristics indicated by the respective collision data of the vehicle type;
determining, by the one or more processors, one or more damaged vehicle parts of the damaged vehicle based on the analyzed crash information;
determining, by the one or more processors, a cost estimate to repair the damaged vehicle based on the one or more damaged vehicle parts;
receiving, at the one or more processors, a cost of repair associated with the damaged vehicle from a treatment facility;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the cost of repair associated with the damaged vehicle to the cost estimate, the cost estimate based on one or more damaged vehicle parts determined by at least one of the velocity or the acceleration included in the vehicle operating information; and
generating, by the one or more processors, an alert to vehicle insurance personnel when the cost of repair from the treatment facility exceeds the cost estimate by more than a threshold value.
The additional elements include “receiving, by the one or more processors from a computing device located in a damaged vehicle involved in a crash, … the crash information collected by one or more sensors, including an accelerometer, coupled to the damaged vehicle and to the computing device, the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to detecting the crash”, “…by the one or more processors…” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Furthermore, “receiving, by the one or more processors from a computing device located in a damaged vehicle involved in a crash, … the crash information collected by one or more sensors, including an accelerometer, coupled to the damaged vehicle and to the computing device, the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to detecting the crash” represent the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic task of “detecting fraud in vehicle insurance claims” therefore it amounts to no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of detecting fraud in vehicle insurance claims.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than [mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components | generally linking an abstract idea to technical components]. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of detecting fraud in vehicle insurance claims. Hence, claims 1, 11, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “compiling a list of replacement vehicle parts based on the determined one or more damaged vehicle parts of the damaged vehicle”, “determining the cost estimate based on the list of replacement parts.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “determining a type of treatment for each damaged vehicle part of the determined one or more damaged vehicle parts.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “determining a treatment complexity level associated with treating the damaged vehicle based on the received crash information and the determined one or more damaged vehicle parts.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the treatment complexity level includes a time duration for completing treatment of the damaged vehicle.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the treatment complexity level indicates whether the damaged vehicle is a total loss.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites “determining, … based on the treatment complexity level, a vehicle treatment facility capable of treating the damaged vehicle”, “transmitting, … an indication of the vehicle treatment facility.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional element “…by the one or more processors, …” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 8 recites “receiving, …, the crash information, the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to the crash.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional element “…from a computing device coupled to the one or more sensors…” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 9 recites the additional element of the “receiving the crash information further includes receiving one or more images of the damaged vehicle”, “analyzing the crash information further includes comparing the one or more images included in the crash information to stored images included in the respective collision data of the vehicle type.” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 10 recites the additional element of the “receiving an indication of whether emergency response equipment of the damaged vehicle was deployed due to the crash.” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 12 recites “compile a list of replacement vehicle parts based on the determined one or more damaged vehicle parts of the damaged vehicle”, “determine the cost estimate based on the list of replacement parts.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites “wherein, to determine the cost estimate, the executable instructions cause the system to: determine a type of treatment for each damaged vehicle part of the determined one or more damaged vehicle parts.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites “determine a treatment complexity level associated with treating the damaged vehicle based on the received crash information and the determined one or more damaged vehicle parts.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the treatment complexity level includes a time duration for completing treatment of the damaged vehicle.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the treatment complexity level indicates whether the damaged vehicle is a total loss.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites the “determine, based on the treatment complexity level, a vehicle treatment facility capable of treating the damaged vehicle”, “transmit an indication of the vehicle treatment facility.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites the additional element of the “analyze the crash information by comparing the one or more images included in the crash information to stored images included in the respective collision data of the vehicle type.” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 6, 8, 11-16, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,138,570. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are broader than the parent claims. See detail below of comparison:
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20
A method for detecting fraud in vehicle insurance claims, the method executed in part by one or more processors programmed to perform the method, the method comprising: (See 570 patent claim 1: A method for detecting fraud in vehicle insurance claims, the method executed in part by one or more processors programmed to perform the method, the method comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors from a computing device located in a damaged vehicle involved in a crash, crash information of the damaged vehicle, the crash information including vehicle operating information of the damaged vehicle, the crash information collected by one or more sensors, including an accelerometer, coupled to the damaged vehicle, and to the computing device, the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to detecting the crash; (See 570 patent claim 1: receiving, by one or more processors from a computing device located in a damaged vehicle involved in a crash, crash information of the damaged vehicle, the crash information including vehicle operating information of the damaged vehicle, the crash information collected by one or more sensors, including an accelerometer, coupled to the damaged vehicle and to the computing device, the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to detecting the crash;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the crash information with respective collision data of a vehicle type that includes or is similar to the vehicle type of the damaged vehicle, the analyzing including comparing at least one of a velocity or an acceleration included in the vehicle operating information to vehicle operating characteristics indicated by the respective collision data of the vehicle type; (See 570 patent claim 1: analyzing, by the one or more processors, the crash information with respective collision data of a vehicle type that includes or is similar to the vehicle type of the damaged vehicle, the analyzing including comparing at least one of a velocity or an acceleration included in the vehicle operating information to vehicle operating characteristics indicated by the respective collision data of the vehicle type;
determining, by the one or more processors, one or more damaged vehicle parts of the damaged vehicle based on the analyzed crash information; (See 570 patent claim 1: determining, by the one or more processors, one or more damaged vehicle parts of the damaged vehicle based on the analyzed crash information;)
determining, by the one or more processors, a cost estimate to repair the damaged vehicle based on the one or more damaged vehicle parts; and (See 570 patent claim 1: determining, by the one or more processors, a cost estimate to repair the damaged vehicle based on the list of replacement vehicle parts)
receiving, at the one or more processors, a cost of repair associated with the damaged vehicle from a treatment facility; (See 570 patent claim 1: receiving, at the one or more processors, a cost of repair associated with the damaged vehicle from a treatment facility;
comparing, by the one or more processors, a cost of repair associated with the damaged vehicle to the cost estimate. (See 570 patent claim 1: generating, by the one or more processors, a suspicious loss alert to vehicle insurance personnel when the cost of repair exceeds the cost estimate by more than a threshold value.
the cost estimate based on one or more damaged vehicle parts determined by at least one of the velocity or the acceleration included in the vehicle operating information. (See 570 patent claim 1: the crash information collected by one or more sensors, including an accelerometer,… determining, by the one or more processors, one or more damaged vehicle parts of the damaged vehicle based on the analyzed crash information;)
generating, by the one or more processors, an alert to vehicle insurance personnel when the cost of repair from the treatment facility exceeds the cost estimate by more than a threshold value (See 570 patent claim 1: generate a suspicious loss alert to vehicle insurance personnel when the cost of repair exceeds the cost estimate by more than a threshold value.
Regarding claims 2 and 12
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the cost estimate includes: compiling a list of replacement vehicle parts based on the determined one or more damaged vehicle parts of the damaged vehicle; and (See 570 patent claim 1: compiling a list of replacement vehicle parts based on the identified one or more damaged vehicle parts of the damaged vehicle)
determining the cost estimate based on the list of replacement parts. (See 570 patent claim 1: determining, by the one or more processors, a cost estimate to repair the damaged vehicle based on the list of replacement vehicle parts)
Regarding claims 3 and 13
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the cost estimate includes: determining a type of treatment for each damaged vehicle part of the determined one or more damaged vehicle parts. (See 570 patent claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more damaged vehicle parts includes determining a vehicle treatment complexity level associated with treating the damaged vehicle based on the received crash information, the treatment complexity level including a damaged vehicle parts list including the identified one or more damaged vehicles parts, a price schedule for treating the damaged vehicle, and a time duration for completing treatment of the damaged vehicle, wherein treating the damaged vehicle includes repairing, salvaging, or scrapping the damaged vehicle.)
Regarding claims 4 and 14
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the cost estimate includes: determining a treatment complexity level associated with treating the damaged vehicle based on the received crash information and the determined one or more damaged vehicle parts. (See 570 patent claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein determining the treatment complexity level includes analyzing the received crash information of the damaged vehicle.)
Regarding claims 5 and 15
The method of claim 4, wherein the treatment complexity level includes a time duration for completing treatment of the damaged vehicle. (See 570 patent claim 2 The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more damaged vehicle parts includes determining a vehicle treatment complexity level associated with treating the damaged vehicle based on the received crash information, the treatment complexity level including a damaged vehicle parts list including the identified one or more damaged vehicles parts, a price schedule for treating the damaged vehicle, and a time duration for completing treatment of the damaged vehicle, wherein treating the damaged vehicle includes repairing, salvaging, or scrapping the damaged vehicle.)
Regarding claims 6 and 16
The method of claim 4, wherein the treatment complexity level indicates whether the damaged vehicle is a total loss. (See 570 patent claim 2 The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more damaged vehicle parts includes determining a vehicle treatment complexity level associated with treating the damaged vehicle based on the received crash information, the treatment complexity level including a damaged vehicle parts list including the identified one or more damaged vehicles parts, a price schedule for treating the damaged vehicle, and a time duration for completing treatment of the damaged vehicle, wherein treating the damaged vehicle includes repairing, salvaging, or scrapping the damaged vehicle.)
Regarding claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the crash information includes: receiving, from a computing device coupled to the one or more sensors, the crash information, the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to the crash. (See 570 patent claim 1: the computing device configured to transmit the crash information to the one or more processors automatically in response to detecting the crash)
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Mullen (US 2014/0278572 A1) Teaches: a system for routing a vehicle damaged in a crash.
King (US 2012/0076437 A1) Teaches: a system for automated claims processing.
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 GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights