DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 17/538,622 entitled "SYSTEMS AND TECHNIQUES FOR AUTHENTICATING INSURANCE CLAIMS" with appeal arguments filed on August 7, 2024 regarding claims filed February 6, 2024, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 15 were amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 6, 2024, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Final Office Action mailed February 21, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on November 30, 2021 and June 21, 2023, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method/process, machine, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A … and an insurance provider application that, when the insurance provider application is …to:
receive a claim request message via a user input related to an insured object of a user, wherein the claim request message is a message that includes insured object information;
automatically filter the claim request message prior to sending the claim request message for processing by authenticating the user as being associated with the insured object with a …card prior to transmission of the claim request, wherein for the authentication the … to: obtain, ….information enabling authentication of the user as being associated with the insured object, wherein the obtained information includes a reference link,
including a uniform resource locator (URL), to an authentication application on the computing apparatus and multiple parameters, as a parameter of the URL;
retrieve state information related to the insured object, the state information indicative of a ….link between the insured object and the computer apparatus;
send a request to the authentication application, by using the reference link, the request is to authenticate the user using one or more of the multiple parameters;
receive confirmation that the retrieved state information corresponds to the insured object;
evaluate confirmation of the retrieved state information and a response to the request for the authentication; and
based on a result of the evaluation, filter out or proceed with processing of the claim request by the insurance provider application”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to retrieve … information related to the insured object or proceed with processing of the claim request recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions] [executed by the processor, the computing apparatus is operable] [computing apparatus is operable][digital]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[contactless ] [via a reading of the contactless card by a near-field communication circuit]:
merely applying near-field communication technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0092] the computing architecture 602 comprises a processor 604, a system memory 606 and a system bus 608. The processor 604 can be any of various commercially available computer processors, including without limitation an AMD® Athlon®, Duron® and Opteron® processors; ARM® application, embedded and secure processors; IBM® and Motorola® DragonBall® and PowerPC® processors; IBM and Sony® Cell processors; Intel® Celeron®, Core®, Core (2) Duo®, Itanium®, Pentium®, Xeon®, and XScale® processors; and similar processors. …[0103] Examples of touch screen type mobile devices, such as mobile device 706, may include (but are not limited to) a smart phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), tablet computer, smart watch, or another portable device. …[0105] Examples of operating systems include Android, Apple iOS, Microsoft Windows OS, Bada, Tizen, Symbian OS, Blackberry OS, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0017] Objective evidence may, for example, be an authenticatable identification card such as, for example, a government issued card (e.g., driver's license), a contactless credit card, a "smart" entity-specific card, or the like. An entity-specific card may be an insurance- provider card, an affinity card, manufacturer-provided card, or the like. A "smart" card may be similar to the contactless credit card that is described with reference to several of the figures and examples in this specification.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“computing apparatus”, “processor”, “mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 3:
“computing apparatus”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 4:
“computing apparatus”, “a display coupled to the processor”, “user identifier device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“contactless card”, “near-field communication circuit”:
generally linking to near field communication technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 5:
“computing apparatus”, “user identifier apparatus”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“contactless card”:
generally linking to near field communication technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 6:
“computing apparatus”, “mobile device”, “security equipment”, “wireless communication link”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 7:
“computing apparatus”, “processor”, “application programming interface call”, “operating system of the mobile device”, “communication link”, “operating system of the mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 8:
“computing apparatus”, “executed by the processor … the mobile device”, “internet protocol address”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0092] the computing architecture 602 comprises a processor 604, a system memory 606 and a system bus 608. The processor 604 can be any of various commercially available computer processors, including without limitation an AMD® Athlon®, Duron® and Opteron® processors; ARM® application, embedded and secure processors; IBM® and Motorola® DragonBall® and PowerPC® processors; IBM and Sony® Cell processors; Intel® Celeron®, Core®, Core (2) Duo®, Itanium®, Pentium®, Xeon®, and XScale® processors; and similar processors. …[0103] Examples of touch screen type mobile devices, such as mobile device 706, may include (but are not limited to) a smart phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), tablet computer, smart watch, or another portable device. …[0105] Examples of operating systems include Android, Apple iOS, Microsoft Windows OS, Bada, Tizen, Symbian OS, Blackberry OS, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, these dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination.
For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0017] Objective evidence may, for example, be an authenticatable identification card such as, for example, a government issued card (e.g., driver's license), a contactless credit card, a "smart" entity-specific card, or the like. An entity-specific card may be an insurance- provider card, an affinity card, manufacturer-provided card, or the like. A "smart" card may be similar to the contactless credit card that is described with reference to several of the figures and examples in this specification.
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 9 recites:
“A …to: receive, by an insurance provider application, a claim request message via a user input related to an insured object of a user, wherein the claim request message is a message that includes insured object information;
determine whether the claim request message is to be filtered or sent for processing based on authentication of the user with a …card and the insured object prior to ….of the claim request, wherein, for the determining, …to:
obtain, …information enabling authentication of the user as being associated with the insured object, wherein information obtained from the reading of the …card includes a reference link, including a uniform resource locator (URL) to an authentication application and multiple parameters, as a parameter of the URL;
retrieve state information related to a link between the insured object and a …associated with the insured object;
send a request to the authentication application, by using the reference link, the request is to authenticate the user of the insured object to the authentication application, where the request includes one or more of the multiple parameters;
receive confirmation that the retrieved state information matches to information identifying the insured object; and
evaluate the retrieved state information and a response to the request for the authentication; and
based on a result of the evaluation, filter out or proceed with processing of the claim request message by the insurance provider application …”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to retrieve … information related to the insured object or proceed with processing of the claim request recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor ] [the processor is caused][mobile device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[contactless] [via a reading of the contactless card by a near-field communication circuit]:
generally linking to near field communication technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[transmission]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0092] the computing architecture 602 comprises a processor 604, a system memory 606 and a system bus 608. The processor 604 can be any of various commercially available computer processors, including without limitation an AMD® Athlon®, Duron® and Opteron® processors; ARM® application, embedded and secure processors; IBM® and Motorola® DragonBall® and PowerPC® processors; IBM and Sony® Cell processors; Intel® Celeron®, Core®, Core (2) Duo®, Itanium®, Pentium®, Xeon®, and XScale® processors; and similar processors. …[0103] Examples of touch screen type mobile devices, such as mobile device 706, may include (but are not limited to) a smart phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), tablet computer, smart watch, or another portable device. …[0105] Examples of operating systems include Android, Apple iOS, Microsoft Windows OS, Bada, Tizen, Symbian OS, Blackberry OS, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0017] Objective evidence may, for example, be an authenticatable identification card such as, for example, a government issued card (e.g., driver's license), a contactless credit card, a "smart" entity-specific card, or the like. An entity-specific card may be an insurance- provider card, an affinity card, manufacturer-provided card, or the like. A "smart" card may be similar to the contactless credit card that is described with reference to several of the figures and examples in this specification.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 10:
“non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, “mobile device”, “a display”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 11:
“non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 12:
“non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 13:
“non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “application programming interface”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 14:
“non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “mobile device”, “mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0092] the computing architecture 602 comprises a processor 604, a system memory 606 and a system bus 608. The processor 604 can be any of various commercially available computer processors, including without limitation an AMD® Athlon®, Duron® and Opteron® processors; ARM® application, embedded and secure processors; IBM® and Motorola® DragonBall® and PowerPC® processors; IBM and Sony® Cell processors; Intel® Celeron®, Core®, Core (2) Duo®, Itanium®, Pentium®, Xeon®, and XScale® processors; and similar processors. …[0103] Examples of touch screen type mobile devices, such as mobile device 706, may include (but are not limited to) a smart phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), tablet computer, smart watch, or another portable device. …[0105] Examples of operating systems include Android, Apple iOS, Microsoft Windows OS, Bada, Tizen, Symbian OS, Blackberry OS, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, these dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination.
For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0017] Objective evidence may, for example, be an authenticatable identification card such as, for example, a government issued card (e.g., driver's license), a contactless credit card, a "smart" entity-specific card, or the like. An entity-specific card may be an insurance- provider card, an affinity card, manufacturer-provided card, or the like. A "smart" card may be similar to the contactless credit card that is described with reference to several of the figures and examples in this specification.
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 15 recites:
“A method, comprising: receiving, by an insurance provider application, a claim request message via a user input related to an insured object of a user, wherein the claim request message is a message that includes insured object information;
evaluating the claim request message for fraudulent activity prior to sending the claim request message for further processing by authenticating the user as being associated with the insured object with a …card, the evaluating comprising: obtaining, … card by a ….information enabling authentication of the user as being associated with the insured object, wherein the information obtained from the reading of the … card includes a reference link, including a uniform resource locator (URL), to an authentication application and multiple parameters,
as a parameter of the URL;
retrieving state information related to a link between the insured object and a….associated with the insured object;
sending, by using the reference link, a request to the authentication application for authentication of the user of the insured object to the authentication application, wherein the request includes one or more of the multiple parameters;
receiving a confirmation of the retrieved state information that the retrieved state information corresponds to identifying information corresponding to the insured object; and
evaluating the confirmation of the retrieved state information and a response to the request for the authentication; and
based on a result of the evaluation, aborting, or proceeding with processing of the claim request message by the insurance provider application”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to retrieve … information related to the insured object or proceed with processing of the claim request recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[mobile device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[contactless] [via a reading of the contactless card by a near-field communication circuit]:
generally linking to near field communication technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0092] the computing architecture 602 comprises a processor 604, a system memory 606 and a system bus 608. The processor 604 can be any of various commercially available computer processors, including without limitation an AMD® Athlon®, Duron® and Opteron® processors; ARM® application, embedded and secure processors; IBM® and Motorola® DragonBall® and PowerPC® processors; IBM and Sony® Cell processors; Intel® Celeron®, Core®, Core (2) Duo®, Itanium®, Pentium®, Xeon®, and XScale® processors; and similar processors. …[0103] Examples of touch screen type mobile devices, such as mobile device 706, may include (but are not limited to) a smart phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), tablet computer, smart watch, or another portable device. …[0105] Examples of operating systems include Android, Apple iOS, Microsoft Windows OS, Bada, Tizen, Symbian OS, Blackberry OS, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0017] Objective evidence may, for example, be an authenticatable identification card such as, for example, a government issued card (e.g., driver's license), a contactless credit card, a "smart" entity-specific card, or the like. An entity-specific card may be an insurance- provider card, an affinity card, manufacturer-provided card, or the like. A "smart" card may be similar to the contactless credit card that is described with reference to several of the figures and examples in this specification.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 16: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 17:
“a display”, “user identifier device be read via a near- field communication circuit of a mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 18:
“mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 19:
“internet protocol address”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 20: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, “[0092] the computing architecture 602 comprises a processor 604, a system memory 606 and a system bus 608. The processor 604 can be any of various commercially available computer processors, including without limitation an AMD® Athlon®, Duron® and Opteron® processors; ARM® application, embedded and secure processors; IBM® and Motorola® DragonBall® and PowerPC® processors; IBM and Sony® Cell processors; Intel® Celeron®, Core®, Core (2) Duo®, Itanium®, Pentium®, Xeon®, and XScale® processors; and similar processors. …[0103] Examples of touch screen type mobile devices, such as mobile device 706, may include (but are not limited to) a smart phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), tablet computer, smart watch, or another portable device. …[0105] Examples of operating systems include Android, Apple iOS, Microsoft Windows OS, Bada, Tizen, Symbian OS, Blackberry OS, or the like.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, these dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination.
For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0017] Objective evidence may, for example, be an authenticatable identification card such as, for example, a government issued card (e.g., driver's license), a contactless credit card, a "smart" entity-specific card, or the like. An entity-specific card may be an insurance- provider card, an affinity card, manufacturer-provided card, or the like. A "smart" card may be similar to the contactless credit card that is described with reference to several of the figures and examples in this specification.
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer ("PERSONAL PROPERTY INVENTORY CAPTIVATOR SYSTEMS AND METHODS", U.S. Publication Number: 20190188796 A1) in view of Lind ("SYSTEM AND METHOD EMPLOYING NEAR FIELD COMMUNICATION AND QR CODE TECHNOLOGY TO ACCESS AND MANAGE SERVER-SIDE PERSONAL AND BUSINESS PROPERTY SECURITY STATUS ACCOUNTS", U.S. Publication Number: 20150035650 A1)
Regarding Claim 1,
Sauer teaches,
A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions and an insurance provider application that, when the insurance provider application is executed by the processor, the computing apparatus is operable to:
(Sauer [0006] disclosure provides an electronic personal property inventory creation system for insurance assessment of personal property items located in a residence. The system includes at least one host computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with a memory device.)
receive a claim request message
(Sauer [0020] The handheld computing devices communicate with a personal property inventory captivator host computing device at a remote location that receives images generated from the cameras of the handheld computing devices.
Sauer [0034] As much of the information may be captured on the personal property list as desired, and can be helpful to a homeowner or renter both for claims purposes
Sauer [0066] facilitate claims for personal property... automating an initiation of personal property claims for avoidance of human error
Sauer [0086] for purposes of making an insurance claim)
via a user input related to an insured object of a user, wherein the claim request message is a message that includes insured object information;
(Sauer [0069] web interface for standard user input and reports
Sauer [0123] includes an input device 412 for receiving input from user
Sauer [0066] storing electronic records at a location remote from the residence to facilitate claims for personal property after a casualty event… (v) automating an initiation of personal property claims for avoidance of human error;
Sauer [0086] for purposes of making an insurance claim
Sauer [0115] captivator computing device 302 can automatically fill out necessary forms and submit an application form to the insurance provider...the system may generate a list of items that are specifically insurable)
wherein the obtained information includes a reference link to an authentication application on the computing apparatus and multiple parameters; retrieve state information related to the insured object, the state information indicative of a digital link between the insured object and the computer apparatus; send a request to the authentication application, by using the reference link, the request is to authenticate the user using one or more of the multiple parameters;
(Sauer [0035] In another aspect, the personal property inventory captivator host computing device may communicate with a payment card transaction system and transaction data therefrom for an enrolled homeowner's or renter's payment card transactions. The transaction data can assist in identifying and valuing objects in the residence.
Sauer [0009] provides an electronic personal property inventory creation system for insurance assessment of personal property items located in a residence.
Sauer [0135] includes user identification data 704, personal property data 706, payment data 708...Personal property data 706 includes cardholder enrollment data, insurance enrollment data, inventory data, value data and other data needed to provide the personal property inventory services provided. Payment data 708 includes, but is not limited to, card information, payment history,...participating insurance providers, including insurance provider identifiers, address information
Sauer [0037] the payment card transaction data may show a purchase of a sofa with identifying information, and when the captivator host computing device recognizes a sofa in the residence it can verify (or ask the user via the insurance company mascot or spokesperson) whether it is the same sofa or a different one. If it is the same one, the captivator host computing device can use the purchase price as an indicator of a replacement value.
Sauer [0158] communication network or link….computer code may be made and/or used by executing the code directly from one medium, by copying the code from one medium to another medium, or by transmitting the code over a network)
receive confirmation that the retrieved state information corresponds to the insured object; evaluate confirmation of the retrieved state information
(Sauer [0108] the system once it sees a Samsung television may check the transaction data for the purchase of a Samsung television, and if such transaction data exists ask the cardholder to confirm.
Sauer [0112] As each device is identified (and confirmed by the cardholder if needed) the item is added to the personal property list
Sauer [0114] the system may request or receive receipts or documentation for other items as confirmation of value and may store such receipts for future reference.
Sauer [0047] The system can make specific inquiries regarding new items as needed, or may inquire regarding objects not identified. For example, if the previously generated list includes a piano, but no piano is seen in the images the spokesperson may say “Do you still have the piano that used to be in the great room?”. The user can then confirm yes or no. If no, the piano can be removed from the list. If yes, its new location can be noted on the personal property list for future reference.)
Sauer does not teach with a contactless card; automatically filter the claim request message prior to sending the claim request message for processing by authenticating the user as being associated with the insured object with a contactless card prior to transmission of the claim request, wherein for the authentication the computing apparatus is operable to; and a response to the request for the authentication; and based on a result of the evaluation, filter out or proceed with processing of the claim request by the insurance provider application; obtain, via a reading of the contactless card by a near-field communication circuit; link, including a uniform resource locator (URL), as a parameter of the URL
Lind teaches,
with a contactless card;
(Lind [0011] account-matching passive Near Field Communication (NFC) and Quick Read (QR) code property target objects and a smartcard ID featuring passive NFC and QR Code technology)
automatically filter the claim request message prior to sending the claim request message for processing by authenticating the user as being associated with the insured object with a contactless card prior to transmission of the claim request, wherein for the authentication the computing apparatus is operable to; and a response to the request for the authentication; and based on a result of the evaluation, filter out or proceed with processing of the claim request by the insurance provider application.
(Lind [0013] Before the property can be officially registered, the registrar/owner must enter all property and owner details relating to the property to which target objects are affixed.
Lind [0018] A name match between the Security Page listing and the one printed by the owner on the smartcard ID will also verify ownership claims
Lind [0010] managing, viewing and verifying owner and property account information
Lind [0011] Property registration is initiated and authenticated by a registrar, who has either acquired a property...account-matching passive Near Field Communication (NFC) and Quick Read (QR) code property target objects and a smartcard ID featuring passive NFC and QR Code technology
Lind [0033] The present authentication model requires owner e-mail and owner-selected password, but alternative authentication methods arising from evolving technologies are also acceptable and adhere to the spirit of this invention.
Lind [0030] integrated into a property item, while the smartcard ID 0400/0410 is kept separate for quick account access and property owner verification)
obtain, via a reading of the contactless card by a near-field communication circuit
(Lind [0004] miniature RFID transponders and integrated circuit (IC) chips opened up portable RFID applications
Lind [Claim 6] wireless devices in claim 1 are mobile phones, pads, readers or like-devices equipped with NFC tag reading hardware and software and/or a QR code scanning application, and wired device refers to a computer or computer-connected NFC tag reader.
Lind [0011] account-matching passive Near Field Communication (NFC) and Quick Read (QR) code property target objects and a smartcard ID featuring passive NFC and QR Code technology
Lind [0030] integrated into a property item, while the smartcard ID 0400/0410 is kept separate for quick account access and property owner verification)
information enabling authentication of the user as being associated with the insured object,
(Lind [0010] managing, viewing and verifying owner and property account information
Lind [0011] Property registration is initiated and authenticated by a registrar, who has either acquired a property...account-matching passive Near Field Communication (NFC) and Quick Read (QR) code property target objects and a smartcard ID featuring passive NFC and QR Code technology
Lind [0033] The present authentication model requires owner e-mail and owner-selected password, but alternative authentication methods arising from evolving technologies are also acceptable and adhere to the spirit of this invention.
Lind [0030] integrated into a property item, while the smartcard ID 0400/0410 is kept separate for quick account access and property owner verification)
wherein the obtained information includes a reference link, including a uniform resource locator (URL), to an authentication application on the computing apparatus and multiple parameters, as a parameter of the URL;
(Lind [Abstract] hyperlinking to a property's unique Internet Protocol (IP) address upon interrogation of encoded Near Field Communication (NFC) tag(s) or quick read (QR) code(s) target objects.
Lind [0008] achieving broad public appeal after QR code scanner/reader applications were introduced on smartphone platforms in 2010. Printed QR codes are most often encoded with domain addresses to hyperlink consumers directly to targeted Websites
Lind [0012] by automatically hyperlinking to the IP address encoded in the property's NFC tag or QR code sticker or by performing like operations through the smartcard ID.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insurance identification system of Sauer to incorporate the smartcard personal property ownership verification teachings of Lind for “verifying online security status and ownership records of registered personal and business properties…. account-matching items … featured on the owner/registrar's smartcard ID” (Lind [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. smartcard personal property ownership verification) to a known concept (i.e. insurance identification system) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “distinguishing feature of the System is the assignment of a single unique identifying Internet Protocol (IP) account number to each set of property target objects and smartcard ID supplied to a property registrar/owner, as opposed to a multi-step reference number method used by other property status/identification systems.” (Lind [0010])
Regarding Claim 2,
Sauer and Lind teach the insurance claim authentication of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Sauer teaches,
obtain location information of the computing apparatus; and confirm the obtained location information corresponds to a location of the insured object including one or more of: a location of the insured object set in the insurance provider application, a mapping application, or a publicly-available sales record.
(Sauer [0047] “Do you still have the piano that used to be in the great room?”. The user can then confirm yes or no. If no, the piano can be removed from the list. If yes, its new location can be noted on the personal property list for future reference.
Sauer [0022] by computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data.)
Regarding Claim 3,
Sauer and Lind teach the insurance claim authentication of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Sauer teaches,
wherein the claim request message includes information related to a loss sustained by the user.
(Sauer [0118] at the time an insurance claim is made.
Sauer [0087] the personal property coverage may not be sufficient to cover the homeowner's or renter's actual losses when calamity strikes.)
Regarding Claim 4,
Sauer and Lind teach the insurance claim authentic