DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 01/20/2026
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 07/11/2022, 09/20/2023, 03/13/2023, 04/17/2023, 08/08/2023, 10/31/2023, 11/29/2023, 01/04/2024, 04/24/2024, 09/16/2025, 10/07/2025, 01/21/2026, 02/24/2026, and 03/26/2026 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 10/13/2021 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Abstract
The abstract dated 10/13/2021 has been reviewed. It has 131 words, and contains no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Response to Arguments- 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the system provides an improved user interface and therefore integrates the claims into a practical application.
Examiner responds by explaining that it is unclear how the claimed UI is an improvement, nor how the claimed UI provides an argued increase in speed, accuracy, or usability. Such an improvement to the speed, accuracy, or usability is an important key element of case law examples such as the argued Trading Technologies International; merely having a structured UI, to which the examiner does not concede the claims disclosure, is not sufficient to show integration into a practical apply nor significantly more. Further, adding a functionality to allow a user to confirm the accuracy of the simulation (e.g. an “are you sure?” popup before sending off the final data) does not actually increase the accuracy of the simulation itself.
Applicant argues that the limitations of “generate, based at least in part on the input data, a simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine, the simulation taking into account the trajectory, the speed, and the incident location, as indicated by the claimant; … transmit, over the one or more networks, data to the computing device of the claimant to dynamically visualize the simulation on the interactive contextual interface; provide on the interactive contextual interface, with the dynamically visualized simulation, one or more features that enable the claimant to confirm an accuracy of the simulation, and provide additional information about the vehicle incident; and receiving, over the one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, an indication as to whether the simulation is accurate” integrate the claims into a practical application.
Examiner responds by explaining that the limitations are not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application nor provide significantly more. Particularly:
generate, based at least in part on the input data, a simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine, the simulation taking into account the trajectory, the speed, and the incident location, as indicated by the claimant;
Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the incident is “simulated” without reciting how this simulation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations.
The actual specifics of this simulation are completely absent from the claims other than that it uses “a physics engine” and involves “the trajectory, the speed, and the incident location.” How any of these features actually operate is not explained.
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
transmit, over the one or more networks, data to the computing device of the claimant to dynamically visualize the simulation on the interactive contextual interface;
Receiving and transmitting data over a network in a generic manner is explicitly recognized by the courts as an example of mere instructions to apply. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Displaying this transmitted data in a generic manner amounts to no more than the use of a general purpose computer in its ordinary capacity.
Should it be found that the displaying of this data is not an example of mere instructions to apply, it is also an example of insignificant post-solution activity.
“Dynamically visualizing” the data, i.e. displaying the data, is merely the act of presenting the results of the abstract process, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
provide on the interactive contextual interface, with the dynamically visualized simulation, one or more features that enable the claimant to confirm an accuracy of the simulation, and provide additional information about the vehicle incident;
Providing this information is a mental process that amounts to no more than indicating such information, as by drawing/writing it with a pencil and paper. For example, a person could draw a checkbox with the label “simulation accurate?” and then check it.
Providing this information through a generic user interface amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
and receiving, over the one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, an indication as to whether the simulation is accurate
Receiving data in such a generic manner amounts to no more than mere data gathering.
Further, should it be found that this is not mere data gathering, it is also an example of mere instructions to apply.
Receiving and transmitting data over a network in a generic manner is explicitly recognized by the courts as an example of mere instructions to apply. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Response to Arguments- 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that no prior art teaches generate a simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine, the simulation taking into account information about the incident
Examiner responds by explaining that this feature is taught by Cardona ([Col 2 line 6-14] “determine, based upon the parsed speech data, for each of a plurality of moments in time during the traffic collision, a position and an orientation of a vehicle involved in the traffic collision; (6) generate a simulation including a representation of the vehicle involved in the traffic collision based upon the map data, the contextual data, and the determined position and orientation for each of the plurality of moments in time;” [Col 16 line 1-16] “VFA computing device 102 may apply physics data to other data, (e.g., map data, contextual data, and vehicle specification data) to determine physical constraints for the simulation corresponding to realistic physics of the collision.” [Col 8 line 44-52] “To simulate the collision, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of one or more vehicles involved in the collision for a plurality of moments in time during the collision. The VFA computing device may simulate the collision based upon, for example, speech data and/or vehicle telematics data. The VFA computing device may further use additional data to simulate the collision (e.g., vehicle specification data, photographic data, text data, and/or physics data).” [Col 9 line 13-35] “Additionally or alternatively, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of the vehicle based upon vehicle telematics data. Vehicle telematics data includes data retrieved from a sensor-equipped vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., an AV) or a device onboard a vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., a mobile phone device or a telematics device installed by an insurance company). Vehicle telematics data may include data derived from, for example, an accelerometer, gyroscope, or GPS device, and indicate the position, yaw, speed, acceleration, deceleration, braking, cornering, and other characteristics of the vehicle's motion and orientation. Such vehicle telematics data may be used by the VFA computing device to determine the behavior of the vehicle from which it is derived during the collision. To generate the simulation, the VFA computing device may generate a representation of the vehicle from which the vehicle telematics data was received that behaves in accordance with the telematics data (e.g., the simulated vehicle appears to move and change orientation in accordance with the telematics data). The simulation thus reflects the actual behavior of the vehicle in the collision and enables analysis of the collision even in cases where no eyewitnesses are available or present at the scene of the collision.” )
Applicant argues that no prior art teaches transmit, over the one or more networks, data to the computing device of the claimant to dynamically visualize the simulation on the interactive contextual interface;
provide on the interactive contextual interface, with the dynamically visualized simulation, one or more features that enable the claimant to confirm an accuracy of the simulation, and provide additional information about the vehicle incident; and
receive, over the one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, an indication as to whether the simulation is accurate.
Examiner responds by explaining that these features are taught by the previously cited prior art.
Particularly, Farmer teaches transmit, over the one or more networks, data to the computing device of the claimant ([Par 17] “In some embodiments, the user device 102a may comprise one or more devices owned and/or operated by one or more users, such as an automobile (and/or other vehicle, liability, personal, and/or corporate insurance customer) insurance customer (e.g., insured) and/or other accident victim and/or witness. According to some embodiments, the user device 102a may communicate with the server 110 via the network 104 to provide evidence and/or other data descriptive of an accident event and/or accident scene (e.g., captured images of damage incurred, recorded statements, and/or scene diagram(s)), as described herein” [Par 33] “According to some embodiments, the mobile electronic device 302 (and/or the display screen 318a thereof) may output a GUI 320 that provides output from and/or accepts input for, a mobile device application executed by the mobile electronic device 302. According to some embodiments, the application may comprise a web-interface application, such as a web browser that provides the GUI 320 based on webpages and/or data served by the server 310.”) to dynamically visualize([Fig. 5D] [Par 71-72] “ The fourth version of the interface 520d may comprise and/or represent, for example, a map-based diagram tool and/or a GUI vector drawing tool. According to some embodiments, the fourth version of the interface 520d may be generated by GUI diagram program code that pre-loads a geo-referenced map image, e.g., as depicted in FIG. 5D. In some embodiments, the map image may comprise the map-based diagram that permits the user to provide input defining one or more points, areas, and/or objects on the generated map image/layer… In some embodiments, the GUI vector drawing tool may be utilized by the user to provide (e.g., via the user device 502 and/or the fourth version of the interface 520d) first vector input that defines a first location on the map and/or a first direction (and/or speed; e.g., a vector). According to some embodiments, the first vector input may be provided in conjunction with and/or utilizing a common GUI object selection tool or library. As depicted in FIG. 5D, for example, the fourth version of the interface 520d may comprise a common GUI object selection area 524 that stores and displays a plurality of common GUI objects, such as those representing various vehicles and objects that may be desired for placement on the map image
provide on the interactive contextual interface, with the dynamically visualized and provide additional information about the vehicle incident;.([Par 56-57] “In some embodiments, dynamic diagramming feedback may prompt the user to identify each vehicle (or other object) involved, prompt the user to assign vector input to a graphical representation of a diagrammed vehicle, and/or provide graphical element relocation guidance (e.g., not permit a user to diagram a vehicle off of a travel way (or apply other graphical and/or spatial diagramming constraints). In the case that a user draws/places a graphical representation of a vehicle in a lake, field, and/or conflicting with a building location, for example, the user may be prompted to confirm that the conflicting (or unusual) location is indeed the desired location. In some embodiments, in the case that the input is determined to comply with stored constraints/criteria at 418D, the method 400 may proceed to determine whether additional input is required, at 418E. In the case that additional input is needed, the method 400 may proceed back to provide input guidance at 418A. The method 400 may, for example, loop through capturing of accident inputs at 418 by first guiding a user through acquiring adequate documentary imagery of an accident/event, then acquiring an adequate quantity and content for recorded statements, then through a self-diagramming accident/scene sketching process. In some embodiments, once each of these (or fewer or more desired input actions) is accomplished, the method 400 may proceed. In some embodiments, any or all user input may be automatically uploaded and/or mapped to various respective form fields into one or more third-party websites and/or forms (such as a police FR-10 Form) to automatically order copies of official reports (e.g., police reports) and/or other incident/accident-related data.”)
and receive, over the one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, an indication as to whether the ([Par 69] “In some embodiments, the submit button 520-13 may, when actuated or selected by the user, for example, initiate a sub-routine that transmits any or all saved, input, and/or captured data (e.g., text details of a user's description of the accident, captured video/images of the accident scene, optically-recognized character information from image data, recorded statement data, scene diagram data, etc.) to a remote server (not shown; e.g., the server 110, 310 of FIG. 1 and/or FIG. 3 herein).” [Par 56-57] “In some embodiments, dynamic diagramming feedback may prompt the user to identify each vehicle (or other object) involved, prompt the user to assign vector input to a graphical representation of a diagrammed vehicle, and/or provide graphical element relocation guidance (e.g., not permit a user to diagram a vehicle off of a travel way (or apply other graphical and/or spatial diagramming constraints). In the case that a user draws/places a graphical representation of a vehicle in a lake, field, and/or conflicting with a building location, for example, the user may be prompted to confirm that the conflicting (or unusual) location is indeed the desired location. In some embodiments, in the case that the input is determined to comply with stored constraints/criteria at 418D, the method 400 may proceed to determine whether additional input is required, at 418E. In the case that additional input is needed, the method 400 may proceed back to provide input guidance at 418A. The method 400 may, for example, loop through capturing of accident inputs at 418 by first guiding a user through acquiring adequate documentary imagery of an accident/event, then acquiring an adequate quantity and content for recorded statements, then through a self-diagramming accident/scene sketching process. In some embodiments, once each of these (or fewer or more desired input actions) is accomplished, the method 400 may proceed. In some embodiments, any or all user input may be automatically uploaded and/or mapped to various respective form fields into one or more third-party websites and/or forms (such as a police FR-10 Form) to automatically order copies of official reports (e.g., police reports) and/or other incident/accident-related data
Cardona makes obvious dynamically visualize the simulation; provide data with the dynamically visualized simulation; data related to the simulation; the data related to the simulation([Col 2 line 6-14] “determine, based upon the parsed speech data, for each of a plurality of moments in time during the traffic collision, a position and an orientation of a vehicle involved in the traffic collision; (6) generate a simulation including a representation of the vehicle involved in the traffic collision based upon the map data, the contextual data, and the determined position and orientation for each of the plurality of moments in time;” [Col 16 line 1-16] “VFA computing device 102 may apply physics data to other data, (e.g., map data, contextual data, and vehicle specification data) to determine physical constraints for the simulation corresponding to realistic physics of the collision.” [Col 8 line 44-52] “To simulate the collision, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of one or more vehicles involved in the collision for a plurality of moments in time during the collision. The VFA computing device may simulate the collision based upon, for example, speech data and/or vehicle telematics data. The VFA computing device may further use additional data to simulate the collision (e.g., vehicle specification data, photographic data, text data, and/or physics data).” [Col 9 line 13-35] “Additionally or alternatively, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of the vehicle based upon vehicle telematics data. Vehicle telematics data includes data retrieved from a sensor-equipped vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., an AV) or a device onboard a vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., a mobile phone device or a telematics device installed by an insurance company). Vehicle telematics data may include data derived from, for example, an accelerometer, gyroscope, or GPS device, and indicate the position, yaw, speed, acceleration, deceleration, braking, cornering, and other characteristics of the vehicle's motion and orientation. Such vehicle telematics data may be used by the VFA computing device to determine the behavior of the vehicle from which it is derived during the collision. To generate the simulation, the VFA computing device may generate a representation of the vehicle from which the vehicle telematics data was received that behaves in accordance with the telematics data (e.g., the simulated vehicle appears to move and change orientation in accordance with the telematics data). The simulation thus reflects the actual behavior of the vehicle in the collision and enables analysis of the collision even in cases where no eyewitnesses are available or present at the scene of the collision.” [Col 8 line 13-18] “The VFA computing device may generate a simulation including a scene model depicting the scene of the collision. The scene model may be based upon, for example, map data and contextual data and enables individuals not present at the scene of the collision (e.g., insurance claims employees) to visualize the scene.” [Col 9 line 1-7] “Based upon the speech data, the VFA computing device may generate visual representations of vehicles involved in the accident based upon the determined positions and orientations of the vehicles over the course of the collision. For example, the visual representations may appear to move and come into contact in a manner as described in the speech data.” [Col 28 line48-52] “The present embodiments may also provide a collision physics simulator. The application would upload in real time the details of the accident into the collision simulator to recreate a video of the path of the vehicles and point of contact.”)
Applicant argues that no prior art teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to further: render multiple different views of the simulation on the interactive contextual interface, based at least in part on the input data.
Examiner responds by explaining that this feature is taught by the previously cited prior art in combination with new reference Lopez (US 12374035 B1)
Particularly,
Farmer teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to further: ([Par 19] “The network 104 may, according to some embodiments, comprise a Local Area Network (LAN; wireless and/or wired), cellular telephone, Bluetooth® and/or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Near Field Communication (NFC), and/or Radio Frequency (RF) network with communication links between the server 110, the user device 102a, the vehicle 102b, the third-party device 106, the sensors 116a-b, and/or the memory 140.”) ([Fig. 5D])
Cardona makes obvious ([Col 2 line 6-14] “determine, based upon the parsed speech data, for each of a plurality of moments in time during the traffic collision, a position and an orientation of a vehicle involved in the traffic collision; (6) generate a simulation including a representation of the vehicle involved in the traffic collision based upon the map data, the contextual data, and the determined position and orientation for each of the plurality of moments in time;” [Col 16 line 1-16] “VFA computing device 102 may apply physics data to other data, (e.g., map data, contextual data, and vehicle specification data) to determine physical constraints for the simulation corresponding to realistic physics of the collision.” [Col 8 line 44-52] “To simulate the collision, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of one or more vehicles involved in the collision for a plurality of moments in time during the collision. The VFA computing device may simulate the collision based upon, for example, speech data and/or vehicle telematics data. The VFA computing device may further use additional data to simulate the collision (e.g., vehicle specification data, photographic data, text data, and/or physics data).” [Col 9 line 13-35] “Additionally or alternatively, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of the vehicle based upon vehicle telematics data. Vehicle telematics data includes data retrieved from a sensor-equipped vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., an AV) or a device onboard a vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., a mobile phone device or a telematics device installed by an insurance company). Vehicle telematics data may include data derived from, for example, an accelerometer, gyroscope, or GPS device, and indicate the position, yaw, speed, acceleration, deceleration, braking, cornering, and other characteristics of the vehicle's motion and orientation. Such vehicle telematics data may be used by the VFA computing device to determine the behavior of the vehicle from which it is derived during the collision. To generate the simulation, the VFA computing device may generate a representation of the vehicle from which the vehicle telematics data was received that behaves in accordance with the telematics data (e.g., the simulated vehicle appears to move and change orientation in accordance with the telematics data). The simulation thus reflects the actual behavior of the vehicle in the collision and enables analysis of the collision even in cases where no eyewitnesses are available or present at the scene of the collision.” )
The combination of Farmer and Cardona does not explicitly teach render multiple different views of the simulation
Lopez makes obvious render multiple different views of the simulation ([Col 11 line 29 – Col 12 line 8] “ Thus, in some embodiments, the system can automatically arrange the elements in space based on keyword analysis, thereby rendering a schematic scene of the accident according to the testimony. In one embodiment, the generative engine can also include damage done to the vehicle(s) following the collision. In some cases, the scene generated could be animated and/or otherwise dynamic. For purposes of illustration and clarity, the drawing depicts an accident simulation as viewed from above. However, in other embodiments, the accident could be rendered from any other viewpoint, such as the driver's viewpoint, an external viewpoint or any other viewpoint. In some cases, a model is generated first, and then the model may be rendered from a particular view to create the simulation. in different embodiments, the system can be configured to further generate data representing injuries to the claimant or others involved in the accident based on key word analysis. FIGS. 6 and 7 present an additional example in which other types of accident-related details may be characterized by the system. ... In some embodiments, the accident may also be shown in a different perspective 750 to better illustrate how such an injury might have occurred or is described as occurring. [Fig. 7] Shows an example simulation. As can be seen, the accident is rendered in multiple views)
PNG
media_image1.png
810
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lopez is analogous art because it is within the field of vehicle accident simulation for insurance purposes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Farmer and Cardona before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better determine the reliability of the claimant, and therefore produce a more accurace insurance assessment. Lopez notes how individuals involved in accidents can be in shock or misremember events, causing them to relay innaccurate information about the accident there leading to innacurate insurance assessments ([Col 1 line 14-34] “ Following an accident, a driver may or may not call their insurance carrier immediately to provide details about the accident. When an accident is reported to the insurance carrier, it is typically a very time-consuming process. In addition, the driver may forget or misremember details about the accident, leading to an inaccurate assessment of damage. The driver may also be in a physical or mental state that prevents them from providing accurate details about incidents before, during or after the accident, and inconsistencies in the report may delay the processing of the claim. In some cases, claimants may provide details that are inconsistent to the damage or injuries reported, but these details may be overlooked by an investigator when reviewing the case. In addition, the insurer may not necessarily be able to distinguish all of the significant details about the accident from the driver's report. The representative of the insurance carrier may therefore obtain an inaccurate understanding of how the accident occurred and what damage has occurred to the vehicle. This inaccuracy can lead to inaccurate damage estimates, multiple inspections, as well as additional costs to both the insurance provider and the driver in some cases.”) To this end, Lopez presents a method for detecting inconsistencies in insurance reports and giving insurance agents more tools and addition information for determining fault ([Col 3 line 18-39] “The embodiments provide a system and method for generating a static or animated video and/or a three-dimensional model (i.e., “3D model”) of an accident involving one or more vehicles. The virtual representations can be constructed from data retrieved from claimant testimony as well as eyewitness testimony and police reports, vehicle telemetry, images, and other data obtained from or about the site of the accident. For example, in some embodiments, the disclosed systems can apply one or more machine-learning models to analyze claimant testimony about an accident and then automatically generate 2D or 3D images of key words as graphic elements, such as vehicles, drivers, passengers, and the surrounding environment. In some cases, the embodiments of the proposed systems can be configured to arrange the elements in space based on key word analysis, thereby rendering a schematic scene of the accident according to the testimony. The model can also demonstrate damage done to the vehicle(s) following the collision. In addition, in some embodiments, the system can be configured to detect inconsistencies between witness reports of the accident and vehicle telemetry and/or images taken of the accident.” [Col 3 line 54- Col 4 line 2] “This generated information can be used by interested parties to better understand the location of impact and the damage to the vehicles, as well as about how the crash occurred. For example, by identifying the various points of damage on the automobile, an investigator can work backward to determine how the accident may have happened. In some cases, the damage depiction can significantly affect the results of an insurance or civil claim, underscoring the need for accurate representation of the damage. In other cases, the vehicle damage can allow the investigator to rule out ways that the accident could not have occurred. This type of visual representation of the accident report details can offer insights and clarity regarding the incident that are far greater than what conventional case reviews can provide.” [Col 11 line 55- Col 12 line 8] “In this case, the example keywords 630 or phrases that have been detected include “Teenage daughter”, “arm broken”, and “concussion”. In FIG. 7, these keywords 630 as well as other data can then be fed to generative engine 510 that can automatically produce additional 2D or 3D images of elements in the context of the previous information, in this case providing a new simulation element 740 that depicts a woman 720 with a broken arm 730. In some embodiments, the accident may also be shown in a different perspective 750 to better illustrate how such an injury might have occurred or is described as occurring. In some other examples, the injury data can be compared to the predictive model data to see if the injuries are consistent with the damage done to the vehicle. In one example, the system could simulate an occupant in the vehicle during the collision, based on the model, and determine likely injuries that may occur. If the claimant's purported injuries do not match any injuries on this list, the system could recommend further investigation by a human investigator (e.g., see FIG. 9).”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Lopez with Farmer and Cardona would allow for even deeper investigation and analysis of accidents along with additional consistency checks, ultimately enabling more accurate insurance assements to be made.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – System)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
generate an interactive contextual interface on a computing device of a claimant claiming an injury from a vehicle incident, the interactive contextual interface enabling the claimant (i) to provide incident information, including to physically draw a trajectory on an input interface of the computing device, and (ii) to indicate a location and severity of one or more injuries of the claimant; … (i) a drawn path representing a trajectory of at least one vehicle, (ii) a speed of the at least one vehicle along the trajectory, and (iii) an incident location following the trajectory
Drawing a diagram of an accident and providing details of said accident is a mental process equivalent to drawing such a diagram with a pencil and paper. Details such as injury severity, vehicle speed, etc. could also be included in a written format with a pencil and paper.
Providing this information through a generic user interface and generically “receiving” this data amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply and mere data gathering, respectively.
provide on the interactive contextual interface, with the dynamically visualized simulation, one or more features that enable the claimant to confirm an accuracy of the simulation, and provide additional information about the vehicle incident;
Providing this information is a mental process that amounts to no more than indicating such information, as by drawing/writing it with a pencil and paper. For example, a person could draw a checkbox with the label “simulation accurate?” and then check it.
Providing this information through a generic user interface amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
receive, over one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, input data indicating (i) a drawn path representing a trajectory of at least one vehicle, (ii) a speed of the at least one vehicle along the trajectory, and (iii) an incident location following the trajectory
Receiving data in such a generic manner amounts to no more than mere data gathering.
receiving, over the one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, an indication as to whether the simulation is accurate
Receiving data in such a generic manner amounts to no more than mere data gathering.
Further, should it be found that this is not mere data gathering, it is also an example of mere instructions to apply.
Post-Solution activity:
… data to the computing device of the claimant to dynamically visualize the simulation on the interactive contextual interface;
“Dynamically visualizing” the data, i.e. displaying the data, is merely the act of presenting the results of the abstract process, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
Should it be found that this is not an example of insignificant post-solution activity, it is also an example of mere instructions to apply.
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
generate an interactive contextual interface on a computing device of a claimant claiming an injury from a vehicle incident, the interactive contextual interface enabling the claimant () to provide incident information,
Applying a computer to generate a generic interface at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to generate that interface, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the interface is “generated” without reciting how this generation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations;
Additionally, the generation of generic menus/ graphical interfaces is explicitly recognized by the courts as an example of mere instructions to apply. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(ii) “Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components” [Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016);]
generate, based at least in part on the input data, a simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine, the simulation taking into account the trajectory, the speed, and the incident location, as indicated by the claimant;
Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the incident is “simulated” without reciting how this simulation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations;
transmit, over the one or more networks, data to the computing device of the claimant to dynamically visualize the simulation on the interactive contextual interface;
Receiving and transmitting data over a network in a generic manner is explicitly recognized by the courts as an example of mere instructions to apply. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Further, displaying this transmitted data in a generic manner on a generic computer amounts to no more than the use of a general purpose computer in its ordinary capacity.
receiving, over the one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, an indication as to whether the simulation is accurate
Receiving and transmitting data over a network in a generic manner is explicitly recognized by the courts as an example of mere instructions to apply. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A computing system comprising: a network communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: …. an interactive contextual interface on a computing device of a claimant, an input interface of the computing device, simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine, … dynamically visualize the simulation on the interactive contextual interface; … the dynamically visualized simulation” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are mere data gathering or post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, or a general purpose computer and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
receive, over one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, input data indicating (i) a drawn path representing a trajectory of at least one vehicle, (ii) a speed of the at least one vehicle along the trajectory, and (iii) an incident location following the trajectory
Receiving data in such a generic manner amounts to no more than mere data gathering.
A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a
practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
receiving, over the one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, an indication as to whether the simulation is accurate
Receiving data in such a generic manner amounts to no more than mere data gathering.
A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a
practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Further, should it be found that this is not mere data gathering, it is also an example of mere instructions to apply.
Post-Solution activity:
… data to the computing device of the claimant to dynamically visualize the simulation on the interactive contextual interface;
“Dynamically visualizing” the data, i.e. displaying the data, is merely the act of presenting the results of the abstract process, and therefore amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity.
This element merely acts on the results of the previous abstract steps. A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Should it be found that this is not an example of insignificant post-solution activity, it is also an example of mere instructions to apply.
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
generate an interactive contextual interface on a computing device of a claimant claiming an injury from a vehicle incident, the interactive contextual interface enabling the claimant () to provide incident information,
Applying a computer to generate a generic interface at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to generate that interface, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the interface is “generated” without reciting how this generation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations;
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
Additionally, the generation of generic menus/ graphical interfaces is explicitly recognized by the courts as an example of mere instructions to apply. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(ii) “Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components” [Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016);]
generate, based at least in part on the input data, a simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine, the simulation taking into account the trajectory, the speed, and the incident location, as indicated by the claimant;
Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the incident is “simulated” without reciting how this simulation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations;
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
transmit, over the one or more networks, data to the computing device of the claimant to dynamically visualize the simulation on the interactive contextual interface;
Receiving and transmitting data over a network in a generic manner is explicitly recognized by the courts as an example of mere instructions to apply. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Further, displaying this transmitted data in a generic manner on a generic computer amounts to no more than the use of a general purpose computer in its ordinary capacity.
receiving, over the one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, an indication as to whether the simulation is accurate
Receiving and transmitting data over a network in a generic manner is explicitly recognized by the courts as an example of mere instructions to apply. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A computing system comprising: a network communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: …. an interactive contextual interface on a computing device of a claimant, an input interface of the computing device, simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine, … dynamically visualize the simulation on the interactive contextual interface; … the dynamically visualized simulation” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites “generate the interactive contextual interface by generating a map interface of an incident location of the vehicle incident on which the claimant indicates the path of the at least one vehicle involved in the vehicle incident.”
Generating a menu through the use of generic computer components is merely the act of instructing a computer to produce that menu. Further, specifying that the menu is map interface merely clarifies what kind of menu is generated.
Claim 3 recites “determine one or more individuals, other than the claimant, that have been involved in the vehicle incident based on a claim initiated by a claimant.”
Insurance claims involve identifying both the submitting party and other parties involved, such as by obtaining their personal information using a menu or other means, as seen in Fig 9E – Fig. 9I. Accordingly, determining this information is merely the act of gathering data representing that information.
Claim 4 recites “generate a contextual flow comprising a set of user interface features that enable the claimant to provide contextual information corresponding to the vehicle incident, the set of user interface features being presented on a computing device of the claimant as part of the interactive contextual interface.”
Generating a set of menus to allow a user to provide information is merely the act of instructing a generic computer to generate that series of menus.
Claim 5 recites “receive contextual information from the computing device of the claimant based on input data corresponding to the claimant interacting with the set of user interface features.”
Receiving data is merely the act of gathering that data.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to further: render multiple different views of the simulation on the interactive contextual interface, based at least in part on the input data.”
This merely clarifies how the simulation is presented, and is therefore merely an extension of the mere instructions to apply and insignificant post-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites “validate or invalidate at least one information item of the set of information items provided by the claimant using the visualized simulation of the vehicle incident.”
Using a previously performed simulation to validate a reported version of the event that was simulated is a mental process that consists of comparing the simulated results to the given report of the events and determining if they are consistent with each other.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more individuals other than the claimant comprise at least one of a witness to the vehicle incident, a party to the vehicle incident, or a driver of another vehicle involved in the vehicle incident.”
This merely clarifies who the individuals are, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process.
Claims 9-16. The elements of claims 9-16 are substantially the same as those of claims 1-8. Therefore, the elements of claim 9-16 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1-8.
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of claim 9, particularly “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to… generate an interactive contextual interface on a computing device of a claimant, an input interface of the computing device, simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine,” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Claims 17-20. The elements of claims 17-20 are substantially the same as those of claims 1-4. Therefore, the elements of claim 17-20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1-4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer (US 20210004909 A1) in view of Cardona (US 11308741 B1)
Claim 1. Farmer makes obvious A computing system comprising: a network communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: ([Par 19] “The network 104 may, according to some embodiments, comprise a Local Area Network (LAN; wireless and/or wired), cellular telephone, Bluetooth® and/or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Near Field Communication (NFC), and/or Radio Frequency (RF) network with communication links between the server 110, the user device 102a, the vehicle 102b, the third-party device 106, the sensors 116a-b, and/or the memory 140.”) generate an interactive contextual interface on a computing device of a claimant claiming an injury from a vehicle incident, the interactive contextual interface enabling the claimant (i) to provide incident information, including to physically draw a trajectory on an input interface of the computing device, and (ii) to indicate a location and severity of one or more injuries of the claimant; ([Fig. 5D] [Par 71-72] “ The fourth version of the interface 520d may comprise and/or represent, for example, a map-based diagram tool and/or a GUI vector drawing tool. According to some embodiments, the fourth version of the interface 520d may be generated by GUI diagram program code that pre-loads a geo-referenced map image, e.g., as depicted in FIG. 5D. In some embodiments, the map image may comprise the map-based diagram that permits the user to provide input defining one or more points, areas, and/or objects on the generated map image/layer… In some embodiments, the GUI vector drawing tool may be utilized by the user to provide (e.g., via the user device 502 and/or the fourth version of the interface 520d) first vector input that defines a first location on the map and/or a first direction (and/or speed; e.g., a vector). According to some embodiments, the first vector input may be provided in conjunction with and/or utilizing a common GUI object selection tool or library. As depicted in FIG. 5D, for example, the fourth version of the interface 520d may comprise a common GUI object selection area 524 that stores and displays a plurality of common GUI objects, such as those representing various vehicles and objects that may be desired for placement on the map image” [Par 55] ” According to some embodiments, audio input may be interrupted to prompt the user to answer a specific question or even to answer a question posed by the user to the system. In some embodiments, recorded statement prompts and/or questions may direct the user to provide any or all of the following data items (either personally or by interviewing a witness): (i) informed consent to the recording; (ii) driver identification information (name, license number, date of birth, address); (iii) whether the driver owns the vehicle or had permission to use the vehicle; (iv) where the vehicle is garaged; (v) if the driver has possession of a set of keys for the vehicle; (vi) whether the driver regularly uses the vehicle; (vii) whether the driver/user was injured; (viii) identifying information of others that were injured; (ix) injury details (parts of body, extent); (x) how injury occurred (injury mechanics as related to the vehicle); (xi) details on initial treatment; (xii) details of any diagnostic injury testing done; (xiii) resulting medication information; (xiv) scheduled follow-up treatment details; (xv) details of prior accidents and/or injuries”)
PNG
media_image2.png
779
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receive, over one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, input data indicating (i) a drawn path representing a trajectory of at least one vehicle, (ii) a speed of the at least one vehicle along the trajectory, and (iii) an incident location following the trajectory; and ([Fig. 5D] [Par 72] “] In some embodiments, the GUI vector drawing tool may be utilized by the user to provide (e.g., via the user device 502 and/or the fourth version of the interface 520d) first vector input that defines a first location on the map and/or a first direction (and/or speed; e.g., a vector).” [Par 51] “In some embodiments, the user input may comprise one or more images and/or videos, one or more audio recordings (e.g., recorded statement(s)), and/or one or more graphical diagramming inputs (e.g., self-diagramming inputs, such as lines, points, vectors, object locations, speeds, etc.).” [Par 47] “ In some embodiments, the method 400 may comprise receiving (e.g., by the webserver and/or via the electronic communications network and/or from the user device) data verification, at 416. Input received via the GUI input elements of the data verification webpage/GUI may, for example, be received by the webserver.”) ([Fig. 5D] [Par 72] “] In some embodiments, the GUI vector drawing tool may be utilized by the user to provide (e.g., via the user device 502 and/or the fourth version of the interface 520d) first vector input that defines a first location on the map and/or a first direction (and/or speed; e.g., a vector).” [Par 51] “In some embodiments, the user input may comprise one or more images and/or videos, one or more audio recordings (e.g., recorded statement(s)), and/or one or more graphical diagramming inputs (e.g., self-diagramming inputs, such as lines, points, vectors, object locations, speeds, etc.).” [Par 47] “ In some embodiments, the method 400 may comprise receiving (e.g., by the webserver and/or via the electronic communications network and/or from the user device) data verification, at 416. Input received via the GUI input elements of the data verification webpage/GUI may, for example, be received by the webserver.” [Par 55] ” According to some embodiments, audio input may be interrupted to prompt the user to answer a specific question or even to answer a question posed by the user to the system. In some embodiments, recorded statement prompts and/or questions may direct the user to provide any or all of the following data items (either personally or by interviewing a witness): (i) informed consent to the recording; (ii) driver identification information (name, license number, date of birth, address); (iii) whether the driver owns the vehicle or had permission to use the vehicle; (iv) where the vehicle is garaged; (v) if the driver has possession of a set of keys for the vehicle; (vi) whether the driver regularly uses the vehicle; (vii) whether the driver/user was injured; (viii) identifying information of others that were injured; (ix) injury details (parts of body, extent); (x) how injury occurred (injury mechanics as related to the vehicle); (xi) details on initial treatment; (xii) details of any diagnostic injury testing done; (xiii) resulting medication information; (xiv) scheduled follow-up treatment details; (xv) details of prior accidents and/or injuries”) ([Fig. 5D] [Par 72] “] In some embodiments, the GUI vector drawing tool may be utilized by the user to provide (e.g., via the user device 502 and/or the fourth version of the interface 520d) first vector input that defines a first location on the map and/or a first direction (and/or speed; e.g., a vector).” [Par 51] “In some embodiments, the user input may comprise one or more images and/or videos, one or more audio recordings (e.g., recorded statement(s)), and/or one or more graphical diagramming inputs (e.g., self-diagramming inputs, such as lines, points, vectors, object locations, speeds, etc.).”) transmit, over the one or more networks, data to the computing device of the claimant ([Par 17] “In some embodiments, the user device 102a may comprise one or more devices owned and/or operated by one or more users, such as an automobile (and/or other vehicle, liability, personal, and/or corporate insurance customer) insurance customer (e.g., insured) and/or other accident victim and/or witness. According to some embodiments, the user device 102a may communicate with the server 110 via the network 104 to provide evidence and/or other data descriptive of an accident event and/or accident scene (e.g., captured images of damage incurred, recorded statements, and/or scene diagram(s)), as described herein” [Par 33] “According to some embodiments, the mobile electronic device 302 (and/or the display screen 318a thereof) may output a GUI 320 that provides output from and/or accepts input for, a mobile device application executed by the mobile electronic device 302. According to some embodiments, the application may comprise a web-interface application, such as a web browser that provides the GUI 320 based on webpages and/or data served by the server 310.”) to dynamically visualize([Fig. 5D] [Par 71-72] “ The fourth version of the interface 520d may comprise and/or represent, for example, a map-based diagram tool and/or a GUI vector drawing tool. According to some embodiments, the fourth version of the interface 520d may be generated by GUI diagram program code that pre-loads a geo-referenced map image, e.g., as depicted in FIG. 5D. In some embodiments, the map image may comprise the map-based diagram that permits the user to provide input defining one or more points, areas, and/or objects on the generated map image/layer… In some embodiments, the GUI vector drawing tool may be utilized by the user to provide (e.g., via the user device 502 and/or the fourth version of the interface 520d) first vector input that defines a first location on the map and/or a first direction (and/or speed; e.g., a vector). According to some embodiments, the first vector input may be provided in conjunction with and/or utilizing a common GUI object selection tool or library. As depicted in FIG. 5D, for example, the fourth version of the interface 520d may comprise a common GUI object selection area 524 that stores and displays a plurality of common GUI objects, such as those representing various vehicles and objects that may be desired for placement on the map image.”) provide on the interactive contextual interface, with the dynamically visualized and provide additional information about the vehicle incident;.([Par 56-57] “In some embodiments, dynamic diagramming feedback may prompt the user to identify each vehicle (or other object) involved, prompt the user to assign vector input to a graphical representation of a diagrammed vehicle, and/or provide graphical element relocation guidance (e.g., not permit a user to diagram a vehicle off of a travel way (or apply other graphical and/or spatial diagramming constraints). In the case that a user draws/places a graphical representation of a vehicle in a lake, field, and/or conflicting with a building location, for example, the user may be prompted to confirm that the conflicting (or unusual) location is indeed the desired location. In some embodiments, in the case that the input is determined to comply with stored constraints/criteria at 418D, the method 400 may proceed to determine whether additional input is required, at 418E. In the case that additional input is needed, the method 400 may proceed back to provide input guidance at 418A. The method 400 may, for example, loop through capturing of accident inputs at 418 by first guiding a user through acquiring adequate documentary imagery of an accident/event, then acquiring an adequate quantity and content for recorded statements, then through a self-diagramming accident/scene sketching process. In some embodiments, once each of these (or fewer or more desired input actions) is accomplished, the method 400 may proceed. In some embodiments, any or all user input may be automatically uploaded and/or mapped to various respective form fields into one or more third-party websites and/or forms (such as a police FR-10 Form) to automatically order copies of official reports (e.g., police reports) and/or other incident/accident-related data.”) and receive, over the one or more networks from the computing device of the claimant, an indication as to whether the ([Par 69] “In some embodiments, the submit button 520-13 may, when actuated or selected by the user, for example, initiate a sub-routine that transmits any or all saved, input, and/or captured data (e.g., text details of a user's description of the accident, captured video/images of the accident scene, optically-recognized character information from image data, recorded statement data, scene diagram data, etc.) to a remote server (not shown; e.g., the server 110, 310 of FIG. 1 and/or FIG. 3 herein).” [Par 56-57] “In some embodiments, dynamic diagramming feedback may prompt the user to identify each vehicle (or other object) involved, prompt the user to assign vector input to a graphical representation of a diagrammed vehicle, and/or provide graphical element relocation guidance (e.g., not permit a user to diagram a vehicle off of a travel way (or apply other graphical and/or spatial diagramming constraints). In the case that a user draws/places a graphical representation of a vehicle in a lake, field, and/or conflicting with a building location, for example, the user may be prompted to confirm that the conflicting (or unusual) location is indeed the desired location. In some embodiments, in the case that the input is determined to comply with stored constraints/criteria at 418D, the method 400 may proceed to determine whether additional input is required, at 418E. In the case that additional input is needed, the method 400 may proceed back to provide input guidance at 418A. The method 400 may, for example, loop through capturing of accident inputs at 418 by first guiding a user through acquiring adequate documentary imagery of an accident/event, then acquiring an adequate quantity and content for recorded statements, then through a self-diagramming accident/scene sketching process. In some embodiments, once each of these (or fewer or more desired input actions) is accomplished, the method 400 may proceed. In some embodiments, any or all user input may be automatically uploaded and/or mapped to various respective form fields into one or more third-party websites and/or forms (such as a police FR-10 Form) to automatically order copies of official reports (e.g., police reports) and/or other incident/accident-related data
Farmer does not explicitly teach generate a simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine, the simulation taking into account information about the incident; dynamically visualize the simulation; provide data with the dynamically visualized simulation; data related to the simulation; the data related to the simulation
Cardona makes obvious generate a simulation of the vehicle incident using a physics engine, the simulation taking into account information about the incident; ([Col 2 line 6-14] “determine, based upon the parsed speech data, for each of a plurality of moments in time during the traffic collision, a position and an orientation of a vehicle involved in the traffic collision; (6) generate a simulation including a representation of the vehicle involved in the traffic collision based upon the map data, the contextual data, and the determined position and orientation for each of the plurality of moments in time;” [Col 16 line 1-16] “VFA computing device 102 may apply physics data to other data, (e.g., map data, contextual data, and vehicle specification data) to determine physical constraints for the simulation corresponding to realistic physics of the collision.” [Col 8 line 44-52] “To simulate the collision, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of one or more vehicles involved in the collision for a plurality of moments in time during the collision. The VFA computing device may simulate the collision based upon, for example, speech data and/or vehicle telematics data. The VFA computing device may further use additional data to simulate the collision (e.g., vehicle specification data, photographic data, text data, and/or physics data).” [Col 9 line 13-35] “Additionally or alternatively, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of the vehicle based upon vehicle telematics data. Vehicle telematics data includes data retrieved from a sensor-equipped vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., an AV) or a device onboard a vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., a mobile phone device or a telematics device installed by an insurance company). Vehicle telematics data may include data derived from, for example, an accelerometer, gyroscope, or GPS device, and indicate the position, yaw, speed, acceleration, deceleration, braking, cornering, and other characteristics of the vehicle's motion and orientation. Such vehicle telematics data may be used by the VFA computing device to determine the behavior of the vehicle from which it is derived during the collision. To generate the simulation, the VFA computing device may generate a representation of the vehicle from which the vehicle telematics data was received that behaves in accordance with the telematics data (e.g., the simulated vehicle appears to move and change orientation in accordance with the telematics data). The simulation thus reflects the actual behavior of the vehicle in the collision and enables analysis of the collision even in cases where no eyewitnesses are available or present at the scene of the collision.” ) dynamically visualize the simulation; provide data with the dynamically visualized simulation; data related to the simulation; the data related to the simulation([Col 2 line 6-14] “determine, based upon the parsed speech data, for each of a plurality of moments in time during the traffic collision, a position and an orientation of a vehicle involved in the traffic collision; (6) generate a simulation including a representation of the vehicle involved in the traffic collision based upon the map data, the contextual data, and the determined position and orientation for each of the plurality of moments in time;” [Col 16 line 1-16] “VFA computing device 102 may apply physics data to other data, (e.g., map data, contextual data, and vehicle specification data) to determine physical constraints for the simulation corresponding to realistic physics of the collision.” [Col 8 line 44-52] “To simulate the collision, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of one or more vehicles involved in the collision for a plurality of moments in time during the collision. The VFA computing device may simulate the collision based upon, for example, speech data and/or vehicle telematics data. The VFA computing device may further use additional data to simulate the collision (e.g., vehicle specification data, photographic data, text data, and/or physics data).” [Col 9 line 13-35] “Additionally or alternatively, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of the vehicle based upon vehicle telematics data. Vehicle telematics data includes data retrieved from a sensor-equipped vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., an AV) or a device onboard a vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., a mobile phone device or a telematics device installed by an insurance company). Vehicle telematics data may include data derived from, for example, an accelerometer, gyroscope, or GPS device, and indicate the position, yaw, speed, acceleration, deceleration, braking, cornering, and other characteristics of the vehicle's motion and orientation. Such vehicle telematics data may be used by the VFA computing device to determine the behavior of the vehicle from which it is derived during the collision. To generate the simulation, the VFA computing device may generate a representation of the vehicle from which the vehicle telematics data was received that behaves in accordance with the telematics data (e.g., the simulated vehicle appears to move and change orientation in accordance with the telematics data). The simulation thus reflects the actual behavior of the vehicle in the collision and enables analysis of the collision even in cases where no eyewitnesses are available or present at the scene of the collision.” [Col 8 line 13-18] “The VFA computing device may generate a simulation including a scene model depicting the scene of the collision. The scene model may be based upon, for example, map data and contextual data and enables individuals not present at the scene of the collision (e.g., insurance claims employees) to visualize the scene.” [Col 9 line 1-7] “Based upon the speech data, the VFA computing device may generate visual representations of vehicles involved in the accident based upon the determined positions and orientations of the vehicles over the course of the collision. For example, the visual representations may appear to move and come into contact in a manner as described in the speech data.” [Col 28 line48-52] “The present embodiments may also provide a collision physics simulator. The application would upload in real time the details of the accident into the collision simulator to recreate a video of the path of the vehicles and point of contact.”)
Cardona is analogous art because it is within the field of accident simulation for insurance purposes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Farmer before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to verify and validate information provided by individuals involved in a crash or accident. Vehicle accidents can happen rapidly, and leave those involved in shock. This can lead to an inaccurate recollection of events, making proper determination of liability difficult. As suggested by Cardona, this can lead to inaccurate, costly, and time consuming process ([Col 1 line 39-53] “Further, the process may include insurance claims employees receiving statements from drivers involved in the collision. Claims employees may often interpret and paraphrase such driver statements for a particular claims file. These statements given by drivers are based upon the driver's recollection of the accident, and may or may not be totally accurate. Further, paraphrasing the driver's statement by a claims employee may add additional error to the driver's account of the accident. Claims employees use this information to attempt to determine the events leading to the collision. For example, in some cases, claims employees will actually use toy cars to reconstruct accidents and points of contact for insurances claims processing. This process may be highly manual, costly, and prone to human error.”) To this end, Cardona introduces a system capable of automating the validation of reports given by witnesses, ([Col 4 line 26-32] “As described below, the systems and methods described herein generate a simulation of a vehicle collision. By so doing, the systems and methods enable a determination of the events leading to the vehicle collision. Further, the systems and methods may verify eyewitness accounts of the vehicle collision, and may enable a determination of the cause of the vehicle collision.”) cross-referencing statements with each other to find contractions as well as employing a physics-based collision simulations to determine if the reported series of events are physically possible ([Col 16 line 1-16] “VFA computing device 102 may apply physics data to other data, (e.g., map data, contextual data, and vehicle specification data) to determine physical constraints for the simulation corresponding to realistic physics of the collision. For example, VFA computing device 102 may apply information regarding the coefficient of friction of the road surface and the mass of a vehicle to determine a maximum capability of the vehicle to decelerate. If, for example, speech data indicates that the vehicle decelerated at a faster rate than is physically possible, VFA computing device 102 may disregard the conflicting speech data when simulating the collision. The simulation thus may more accurately reflect the actual behavior of the vehicle in the collision.” [Col 14 line 62-67] “ VFA computing device 102 may disregard speech data that VFA computing device 102 determines to be conflicting. Thus, the simulation may conform as close as possible to an eyewitness statement while maintaining a physically accurate depiction of the collision.”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Farmer with Cardona would produce a system capable of not only collecting comprehensive reports from witnesses of a crash using intuitive interfaces, but also validating those reports against simulations of the crash to give insurance workers the most accurate information possible for determining fault and liability in an accident.
Claim 2. Farmer makes obvious generate the interactive contextual interface by generating a map interface of an incident location of the vehicle incident on which the claimant indicates the path of the at least one vehicle involved in the vehicle incident. ([Fig. 5D]) ([Par 71] “ In some embodiments, the fourth version (or page or instance) of the interface 520d may comprise an accident diagram webpage and/or GUI that permits, instructs, and/or guides a user/insured through constructing a diagram of an incident and/or accident scene. The fourth version of the interface 520d may comprise and/or represent, for example, a map-based diagram tool and/or a GUI vector drawing tool” [Par 71-72] “ The fourth version of the interface 520d may comprise and/or represent, for example, a map-based diagram tool and/or a GUI vector drawing tool. According to some embodiments, the fourth version of the interface 520d may be generated by GUI diagram program code that pre-loads a geo-referenced map image, e.g., as depicted in FIG. 5D. In some embodiments, the map image may comprise the map-based diagram that permits the user to provide input defining one or more points, areas, and/or objects on the generated map image/layer… In some embodiments, the GUI vector drawing tool may be utilized by the user to provide (e.g., via the user device 502 and/or the fourth version of the interface 520d) first vector input that defines a first location on the map and/or a first direction (and/or speed; e.g., a vector). According to some embodiments, the first vector input may be provided in conjunction with and/or utilizing a common GUI object selection tool or library. As depicted in FIG. 5D, for example, the fourth version of the interface 520d may comprise a common GUI object selection area 524 that stores and displays a plurality of common GUI objects, such as those representing various vehicles and objects that may be desired for placement on the map image”)
Claim 3. Farmer makes obvious determine one or more individuals, other than the claimant, that have been involved in the vehicle incident based on a claim initiated by a claimant. ([Par 36] “Further, the user/insured may utilize a second drop-down menu element 344-2b to view a listing of drivers (or other individuals) associated with the policy number 344a in the database 340 and/or to select (and/or enter additional) one or more appropriate drivers/individuals, e.g., involved in an accident. In such a manner, for example, in the case that the information captured and identified from the insurance card 332 is accurate, a claim reporting application of the electronic mobile device 302 (and/or a web-based GUI 320 served by the server 310) may be pre-loaded with appropriate policy-related data (e.g., from the database 340)” [Par 41] “According to some embodiments, the login webpage may comprise instructions requesting login credentials and/or data from a user/user device. The login webpage may, for example, be output via the user device and/or GUI thereof and may prompt the user to activate a camera of the user's device and capture an image of an insurance and/or other identification card.”[Par 44] “The insurance policy (and/or other identification data) derived from the image data received from the user device may, for example, be utilized to authorize access to accident and/or claim submission functionality offered by or via the webserver (and/or associated application).” [Par 54] “According to some embodiments, image, video, audio, and/or diagramming evidence may be analyzed to calculate estimated distances between objects at the accident scene and/or orientations and/or positions of objects at or near the scene. Image analysis may include object, facial, pattern, and/or spatial recognition analysis routines that, e.g., identify individuals at the scene, identify vehicles at the scene, identify roadway features, obstacles, weather conditions, etc”)
Claim 4. Farmer makes obvious generate a contextual flow comprising a set of user interface features that enable the claimant to provide contextual information corresponding to the vehicle incident, the set of user interface features being presented on a computing device of the claimant as part of the interactive contextual interface. ([Fig. 5C] Shows a user interface enabling a claimant to provide contextual information. Note that the bottom options are a sequential checklist [Par 70] “In some embodiments, one or more options of the accident checklist 520-11 may generate additional interface versions, screens, and/or GUI elements (not shown) defined by stored data input guidance rules. The “Take pictures of your damage” option 520-15 and/or the “Take pictures of other damage” option 520-16 may, upon a triggering and/or receipt of input from the user (e.g., a properly-positioned click of a mouse or other pointer) with respect to the “Take pictures of your damage” option 520-15 and/or the “Take pictures of other damage” option 520-16, respectively, initiate a sub-routine that may trigger a call to and/or otherwise cause a provision, generation, and/or outputting of image capture guidance rules (not shown). Such rules may, in some embodiments, actively guide a user through capturing each required item of image data.. According to some embodiments, the “Record Statement(s)” option 520-17 may, upon a triggering and/or receipt of input from the user (e.g., a properly-positioned click of a mouse or other pointer) with respect to the “Record Statement(s)” option 520-17, initiate a sub-routine that may trigger a call to and/or otherwise cause a provision, generation, and/or outputting of guidance that steps the user through recording audio statements of one or more accident witnesses by prompting the user to ask the witness certain questions.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
777
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 5. Farmer makes obvious receive contextual information from the computing device of the claimant based on input data corresponding to the claimant interacting with the set of user interface features. ([Fig. 5C] Shows a user interface enabling a claimant to provide contextual information. [Par 31] “The app may include, comprise, and/or cause the generation of the GUI 220, which may be utilized, for example, for transmitting and/or exchanging data through and/or via a network (not shown in FIG. 2; e.g., the Internet). In some embodiments, once the app receives captured data from an input device 216a-b, the app in turn transmits the captured data through a first interface for exchanging data (not separately depicted in FIG. 2) and through the network.” [Par 70] “In some embodiments, one or more options of the accident checklist 520-11 may generate additional interface versions, screens, and/or GUI elements (not shown) defined by stored data input guidance rules. The “Take pictures of your damage” option 520-15 and/or the “Take pictures of other damage” option 520-16 may, upon a triggering and/or receipt of input from the user (e.g., a properly-positioned click of a mouse or other pointer) with respect to the “Take pictures of your damage” option 520-15 and/or the “Take pictures of other damage” option 520-16, respectively, initiate a sub-routine that may trigger a call to and/or otherwise cause a provision, generation, and/or outputting of image capture guidance rules (not shown). Such rules may, in some embodiments, actively guide a user through capturing each required item of image data ... According to some embodiments, the “Record Statement(s)” option 520-17 may, upon a triggering and/or receipt of input from the user (e.g., a properly-positioned click of a mouse or other pointer) with respect to the “Record Statement(s)” option 520-17, initiate a sub-routine that may trigger a call to and/or otherwise cause a provision, generation, and/or outputting of guidance that steps the user through recording audio statements of one or more accident witnesses by prompting the user to ask the witness certain questions.”)
Claim 8. Farmer makes obvious wherein the one or more individuals other than the claimant comprise at least one of a witness to the vehicle incident, a party to the vehicle incident, or a driver of another vehicle involved in the vehicle incident. ([Par 58]”Image analysis may include object, facial, pattern, and/or spatial recognition analysis routines that, e.g., identify individuals at the scene, identify vehicles at the scene, identify roadway features, obstacles, weather conditions, etc” [Par 36] “In some embodiments, the GUI 320 may comprise one or more drop-down menu elements 344-2a, 344-2b that permit the user/insured to provide input indicating a selection of one of a plurality of available data options. In the case of the vehicle 344b and the driver 344c, for example, the user/insured may utilize a first drop-down menu element 344-2a to view a listing of vehicles (and/or other objects; e.g., insured objects) associated with the policy number 344a in the database 340 and/or to select (and/or enter additional) one or more appropriate vehicles (and/or other objects), e.g., involved in an accident. Further, the user/insured may utilize a second drop-down menu element 344-2b to view a listing of drivers (or other individuals) associated with the policy number 344a in the database 340 and/or to select (and/or enter additional) one or more appropriate drivers/individuals, e.g., involved in an accident.” [Par 70] “According to some embodiments, the “Record Statement(s)” option 520-17 may, upon a triggering and/or receipt of input from the user (e.g., a properly-positioned click of a mouse or other pointer) with respect to the “Record Statement(s)” option 520-17, initiate a sub-routine that may trigger a call to and/or otherwise cause a provision, generation, and/or outputting of guidance that steps the user through recording audio statements of one or more accident witnesses by prompting the user to ask the witness certain questions.”)
Claims 9-13 and 16. The elements of claims 9-13 and 16 are substantially the same as those of claims 1-5 and 8. Therefore, the elements of claim 9-13 and 16 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1-5 and 8. Further, Farmer makes obvious the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” ([Par 39] “Any of the processes and methods described herein may be performed and/or facilitated by hardware, software (including microcode), firmware, or any combination thereof. For example, a storage medium… may store thereon instructions that when executed by a machine (such as a computerized processor) result in performance according to any one or more of the embodiments described herein”)
Claims 17-20. The elements of claims 17-20 are substantially the same as those of claims 1-4. Therefore, the elements of claim 17-20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1-4.
(2) Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer (US 20210004909 A1) in view of Cardona (US 11308741 B1) in further view of Lopez (US 12374035 B1)
Claim 6. Farmer teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to further: ([Par 19] “The network 104 may, according to some embodiments, comprise a Local Area Network (LAN; wireless and/or wired), cellular telephone, Bluetooth® and/or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Near Field Communication (NFC), and/or Radio Frequency (RF) network with communication links between the server 110, the user device 102a, the vehicle 102b, the third-party device 106, the sensors 116a-b, and/or the memory 140.”) ([Fig. 5D])
Cardona makes obvious ([Col 2 line 6-14] “determine, based upon the parsed speech data, for each of a plurality of moments in time during the traffic collision, a position and an orientation of a vehicle involved in the traffic collision; (6) generate a simulation including a representation of the vehicle involved in the traffic collision based upon the map data, the contextual data, and the determined position and orientation for each of the plurality of moments in time;” [Col 16 line 1-16] “VFA computing device 102 may apply physics data to other data, (e.g., map data, contextual data, and vehicle specification data) to determine physical constraints for the simulation corresponding to realistic physics of the collision.” [Col 8 line 44-52] “To simulate the collision, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of one or more vehicles involved in the collision for a plurality of moments in time during the collision. The VFA computing device may simulate the collision based upon, for example, speech data and/or vehicle telematics data. The VFA computing device may further use additional data to simulate the collision (e.g., vehicle specification data, photographic data, text data, and/or physics data).” [Col 9 line 13-35] “Additionally or alternatively, the VFA computing device may determine the position and orientation of the vehicle based upon vehicle telematics data. Vehicle telematics data includes data retrieved from a sensor-equipped vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., an AV) or a device onboard a vehicle involved in the collision (e.g., a mobile phone device or a telematics device installed by an insurance company). Vehicle telematics data may include data derived from, for example, an accelerometer, gyroscope, or GPS device, and indicate the position, yaw, speed, acceleration, deceleration, braking, cornering, and other characteristics of the vehicle's motion and orientation. Such vehicle telematics data may be used by the VFA computing device to determine the behavior of the vehicle from which it is derived during the collision. To generate the simulation, the VFA computing device may generate a representation of the vehicle from which the vehicle telematics data was received that behaves in accordance with the telematics data (e.g., the simulated vehicle appears to move and change orientation in accordance with the telematics data). The simulation thus reflects the actual behavior of the vehicle in the collision and enables analysis of the collision even in cases where no eyewitnesses are available or present at the scene of the collision.” )
The combination of Farmer and Cardona does not explicitly teach render multiple different views of the simulation
Lopez makes obvious render multiple different views of the simulation ([Col 11 line 29 – Col 12 line 8] “ Thus, in some embodiments, the system can automatically arrange the elements in space based on keyword analysis, thereby rendering a schematic scene of the accident according to the testimony. In one embodiment, the generative engine can also include damage done to the vehicle(s) following the collision. In some cases, the scene generated could be animated and/or otherwise dynamic. For purposes of illustration and clarity, the drawing depicts an accident simulation as viewed from above. However, in other embodiments, the accident could be rendered from any other viewpoint, such as the driver's viewpoint, an external viewpoint or any other viewpoint. In some cases, a model is generated first, and then the model may be rendered from a particular view to create the simulation. in different embodiments, the system can be configured to further generate data representing injuries to the claimant or others involved in the accident based on key word analysis. FIGS. 6 and 7 present an additional example in which other types of accident-related details may be characterized by the system. ... In some embodiments, the accident may also be shown in a different perspective 750 to better illustrate how such an injury might have occurred or is described as occurring. [Fig. 7] Shows an example simulation. As can be seen, the accident is rendered in multiple views)
PNG
media_image1.png
810
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lopez is analogous art because it is within the field of vehicle accident simulation for insurance purposes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Farmer and Cardona before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better determine the reliability of the claimant, and therefore produce a more accurace insurance assessment. Lopez notes how individuals involved in accidents can be in shock or misremember events, causing them to relay innaccurate information about the accident there leading to innacurate insurance assessments ([Col 1 line 14-34] “ Following an accident, a driver may or may not call their insurance carrier immediately to provide details about the accident. When an accident is reported to the insurance carrier, it is typically a very time-consuming process. In addition, the driver may forget or misremember details about the accident, leading to an inaccurate assessment of damage. The driver may also be in a physical or mental state that prevents them from providing accurate details about incidents before, during or after the accident, and inconsistencies in the report may delay the processing of the claim. In some cases, claimants may provide details that are inconsistent to the damage or injuries reported, but these details may be overlooked by an investigator when reviewing the case. In addition, the insurer may not necessarily be able to distinguish all of the significant details about the accident from the driver's report. The representative of the insurance carrier may therefore obtain an inaccurate understanding of how the accident occurred and what damage has occurred to the vehicle. This inaccuracy can lead to inaccurate damage estimates, multiple inspections, as well as additional costs to both the insurance provider and the driver in some cases.”) To this end, Lopez presents a method for detecting inconsistencies in insurance reports and giving insurance agents more tools and addition information for determining fault ([Col 3 line 18-39] “The embodiments provide a system and method for generating a static or animated video and/or a three-dimensional model (i.e., “3D model”) of an accident involving one or more vehicles. The virtual representations can be constructed from data retrieved from claimant testimony as well as eyewitness testimony and police reports, vehicle telemetry, images, and other data obtained from or about the site of the accident. For example, in some embodiments, the disclosed systems can apply one or more machine-learning models to analyze claimant testimony about an accident and then automatically generate 2D or 3D images of key words as graphic elements, such as vehicles, drivers, passengers, and the surrounding environment. In some cases, the embodiments of the proposed systems can be configured to arrange the elements in space based on key word analysis, thereby rendering a schematic scene of the accident according to the testimony. The model can also demonstrate damage done to the vehicle(s) following the collision. In addition, in some embodiments, the system can be configured to detect inconsistencies between witness reports of the accident and vehicle telemetry and/or images taken of the accident.” [Col 3 line 54- Col 4 line 2] “This generated information can be used by interested parties to better understand the location of impact and the damage to the vehicles, as well as about how the crash occurred. For example, by identifying the various points of damage on the automobile, an investigator can work backward to determine how the accident may have happened. In some cases, the damage depiction can significantly affect the results of an insurance or civil claim, underscoring the need for accurate representation of the damage. In other cases, the vehicle damage can allow the investigator to rule out ways that the accident could not have occurred. This type of visual representation of the accident report details can offer insights and clarity regarding the incident that are far greater than what conventional case reviews can provide.” [Col 11 line 55- Col 12 line 8] “In this case, the example keywords 630 or phrases that have been detected include “Teenage daughter”, “arm broken”, and “concussion”. In FIG. 7, these keywords 630 as well as other data can then be fed to generative engine 510 that can automatically produce additional 2D or 3D images of elements in the context of the previous information, in this case providing a new simulation element 740 that depicts a woman 720 with a broken arm 730. In some embodiments, the accident may also be shown in a different perspective 750 to better illustrate how such an injury might have occurred or is described as occurring. In some other examples, the injury data can be compared to the predictive model data to see if the injuries are consistent with the damage done to the vehicle. In one example, the system could simulate an occupant in the vehicle during the collision, based on the model, and determine likely injuries that may occur. If the claimant's purported injuries do not match any injuries on this list, the system could recommend further investigation by a human investigator (e.g., see FIG. 9).”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Lopez with Farmer and Cardona would allow for even deeper investigation and analysis of accidents along with additional consistency checks, ultimately enabling more accurate insurance assements to be made.
Claim 7. Farmer makes obvious wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: ([Par 70] “In some embodiments, one or more options of the accident checklist 520-11 may generate additional interface versions, screens, and/or GUI elements (not shown) defined by stored data input guidance rules. The “Take pictures of your damage” option 520-15 and/or the “Take pictures of other damage” option 520-16 may, upon a triggering and/or receipt of input from the user (e.g., a properly-positioned click of a mouse or other pointer) with respect to the “Take pictures of your damage” option 520-15 and/or the “Take pictures of other damage” option 520-16, respectively, initiate a sub-routine that may trigger a call to and/or otherwise cause a provision, generation, and/or outputting of image capture guidance rules (not shown). Such rules may, in some embodiments, actively guide a user through capturing each required item of image data… According to some embodiments, the “Record Statement(s)” option 520-17 may, upon a triggering and/or receipt of input from the user (e.g., a properly-positioned click of a mouse or other pointer) with respect to the “Record Statement(s)” option 520-17, initiate a sub-routine that may trigger a call to and/or otherwise cause a provision, generation, and/or outputting of guidance that steps the user through recording audio statements of one or more accident witnesses by prompting the user to ask the witness certain questions.” [Par 44] “The insurance policy (and/or other identification data) derived from the image data received from the user device may, for example, be utilized to authorize access to accident and/or claim submission functionality offered by or via the webserver (and/or associated application).”)
Cardona makes obvious validate or invalidate accident information ([Col 4 line 26-32] “As described below, the systems and methods described herein generate a simulation of a vehicle collision. By so doing, the systems and methods enable a determination of the events leading to the vehicle collision. Further, the systems and methods may verify eyewitness accounts of the vehicle collision, and may enable a determination of the cause of the vehicle collision.”) using the visualized simulation of the vehicle incident. ([Col 28 line 48-60] “The present embodiments may also provide a collision physics simulator. The application would upload in real time the details of the accident into the collision simulator to recreate a video of the path of the vehicles and point of contact. Based upon the vehicle details in the file, the application may be configured to use real world and validated vehicle physical and engineering specifications related to gross weight, acceleration, deceleration, crump zones, etc.” [Col 8 line 13-18] “The VFA computing device may generate a simulation including a scene model depicting the scene of the collision. The scene model may be based upon, for example, map data and contextual data and enables individuals not present at the scene of the collision (e.g., insurance claims employees) to visualize the scene.” [Col 9 line 1-7] “Based upon the speech data, the VFA computing device may generate visual representations of vehicles involved in the accident based upon the determined positions and orientations of the vehicles over the course of the collision. For example, the visual representations may appear to move and come into contact in a manner as described in the speech data.” [Col 28 line48-52] “The present embodiments may also provide a collision physics simulator. The application would upload in real time the details of the accident into the collision simulator to recreate a video of the path of the vehicles and point of contact.”)
Claims 14-15. The elements of claims 14-15 are substantially the same as those of claims 6-7. Therefore, the elements of claim 14-15 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 6-7. Further, Farmer makes obvious the additional elements of claim 9 as inherited by claims 14-15, particularly: “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” ([Par 39] “Any of the processes and methods described herein may be performed and/or facilitated by hardware, software (including microcode), firmware, or any combination thereof. For example, a storage medium… may store thereon instructions that when executed by a machine (such as a computerized processor) result in performance according to any one or more of the embodiments described herein”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/M.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2187 /EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights