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 .
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks received 1/28/2026.
Claims 21, 26-28, 31-32, 34-36, 39, 43, and 44 have been amended.
Claims 21-28, 30-39 and 43-46 are pending and have been examined.
This action is final.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claim 44 is withdrawn in in light of the claim amendments received.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 44 is withdrawn in in light of the claim amendments received.
Claim Rejections
Claims 21-28, 30-39 and 43-461 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Acknowledgement of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 21-28, 30-39 and 43-46 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims not reciting an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I. Additionally, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims providing additional elements that go beyond the judicial exception and either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more, as the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem and include additional elements that are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 (analysis continues below).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2A Prong I and respectfully maintains the claims recite an abstract idea for the following reasons:
The mere inclusion of additional elements in the claims do not preclude a claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Examiner does not contend that the claimed processor, trained machine learning model, second trained machine learning model, etc., are recitation of fundamental economic insurance practices. However, the mere inclusion of claim limitations drawn to computer components / additional elements does not necessarily preclude the same aforementioned claims from being considered to recite an abstract idea under step 2A prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis – see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015), emphasis added: ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This fact is evident in light of the sequence of steps performed during the revised Alice/Mayo test – see MPEP §2106.04(II)(A) showing a visual summary of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
The following portions argued by Applicant in remarks (page 11) include recitation of the abstract idea recited:
generating … [based on] the one or more keywords …, one or more labels associated with the damaged vehicle; assigning … one or more weights to the one or more labels to generate one or more weighted labels….
Examiner notes Applicant’s reliance upon the additional elements recited in step2A Prong I are possibly implying a stance that the claims indicate a clear improvement to technology or some computer functionality even at step 2A Prong I, and thus do not need to undergo the full eligibility analysis (see MPEP § 2106.06(b)). However, the examiner notes streamlined analysis is optional and respectfully submits streamlined analysis should not be performed for the instant claims, because there are no claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, which clearly improve technology, or are otherwise self-evidently patent-eligible – see MPEP §2106.06(b): “Only when the claims clearly improve technology or computer functionality, or otherwise have self-evident eligibility, should the streamlined analysis be used”. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully submits that a full eligibility analysis should be performed, consistent with MPEP § 2106.06(b).
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, as well as the reasons provided in the 101 rejections further below, Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2A Prong I are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully maintains the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong I: Yes – the claims recite an abstract idea).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant arguments that the claims are directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or another technology or technical field and either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the following reasons:
With respect to Applicant’s arguments drawn to “conventional systems may not be able to automatically detect and characterize various conditions or damage associated with a vehicle …”2, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the overall thrust of argument for following reasons:
Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). Instead, the claim limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic machine learning algorithms defined at a high degree of generality (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)). This amounts to merely limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments drawn to “…increased efficiencies and improved predictive accuracies…”3, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the overall thrust of argument for following reasons:
The ordered combination of additional elements does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Examiner respectfully maintains the ordered combination of all the additional elements does not lead to a solution that improves the additional elements recited themselves, or a technological environment that is realized by, or related to, the additional elements of the claims. Applicant’s arguments in Remarks do not seem to be drawn to an improvement in the additional elements themselves, beyond vague, unsupported assertions of “increased efficiencies and improved predictive accuracies” (page 14 of Remarks, referencing Specification), which are possibly relative to humans engaging in the abstract business process.
Applicant’s arguments do not provide a convincing rationale rooted in the additional elements or technological field themselves when explaining the purported improvements of increasing efficiencies and predictive accuracies – Examiner notes “claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"” (See MPEP §2106.05(f)((1)).
Increasing efficiencies and predictive accuracies of abstract business practices relative to humans via conventional computer technology is not indicative of a technical solution to a technical problem under Alice/Mayo analysis.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract insurance practices within a particular technological environment, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2B analysis, asserting the claims include an inventive concept per limitations “assigning … by a trained machine learning model, one or more weights to the one or more labels to generate one or more weighted labels; and determining, via the processor, based on the one or more weighted labels and by inputting the image data into a second trained machine learning model, a peril…”, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s stance, and fails to find arguments persuasive for the following reasons:
The processor generally determining “based on the one or more weighted labels and inputting the image data into a trained machine learning model” is insufficient detail to indicate a technical solution to a technical problem. This determining is limited only in terms of using a machine learning model with the damaged vehicle image, and using the weighted labels, where no particular interdependencies are required between the two bases for the two analyses (i.e., the weighted labels basis and the inputting basis). This is not indicative of a technical solution to a technical problem; it is instead indicative of the additional elements being merely applied. Examiner notes “claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"” (See MPEP §2106.05(f)((1)).
With respect to Applicant’s supporting argument stating “…there is no indication that it is ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field’ to identify a vehicle and electronic file, and perform damage assessment, using the particular process described herein, with multiple processing units of an artificial intelligence platform”, Examiner respectfully maintains that identifying a vehicle and (insurance) file, and performing a damage assessment are aspects of the abstract idea recited. The specificity of the abstract idea itself is not indicative of an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo analysis. See BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 when analyzed under the Alice/Mayo test.
In order to further support Examiner’s position of the claims not being patent eligible, examiner notes the following prior art disclosing or otherwise suggesting that the following aspects are well-understood, routine and conventional:
Non-patent Literature, “A Tutorial on Multi-Label Learning” (Gibaja), disclosing multi-label problems generally have correlations between labels (page 2 of supplied PDF), and that multi-label learning methods are known to include “algorithm adaptation methods” for machine learning models (section 4 and figure 3). Table IV also discloses weights designated per label.
United States Patent Application Publication No. (Iyer), disclosing, in ¶4: “Standard information retrieval schemes … query likelihood from language models or probabilistic ranking approaches [and] use term weighting schemes …. For example, an input query in the first pass of retrieval is typically represented using the count of the terms in the query and a context-independent or query-independent weight which denotes the term importance in the query. Traditional vector-space and language modeling retrieval techniques use term-frequency (TF), and/or document-frequency (DF) as an unsupervised technique to learn query weights.”
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20140163962 A1 (Castelli), disclosing in ¶5: “…Even the more recent advances in information retrieval techniques for query term weighting typically rely on bag-of-words models and corpus statistics, such as inverse-document-frequency (IDF), to assign weights to terms ….”
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 21-28,30-39 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test4. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims are directed to either a method, non-transitory computer readable medium(s), which correspond to statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
In light of step 2A Alice/Mayo analysis performed on the instant claims5, claims 21-28,30-39 and 43-44 have been determined to be directed to abstract insurance practices. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
Prior to step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo analysis, examiner notes they have identified method claim 21 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis under step 2A Prong I, as method claim 1 is analogous to claims 31 and 36 under step 2A Prong I analysis. I.e., the step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo rationales applied to claim 1 (below) are similarly applied to claims 31 and 36, mutatis mutandis.
When analyzed under prong I of revised step 2A, claims 21-28,30-39 and 43-44 each recite a method of organizing human activity,6 because independent claims 21, 31, and 36 each recite claim limitations drawn to:
“1. A … method of determining damage to personal property using an image illustrating the personal property, the … method comprising:
receiving… image data including a … image depicting:
a damaged vehicle, and
text associated with the damaged vehicle;
performing… [a] … character recognition operation on the second digital image, … identifying, as an output of the … character recognition operation:
an alphanumeric identifier unique to the damaged vehicle, and
one or more key words included in the text;
selecting … based on the alphanumeric identifier, a stored … file associated with the damaged vehicle, the stored … file specifying a peril condition corresponding to the damaged vehicle;
generating, … [based on] the one or more key words …, one or more labels associated with the damaged vehicle;
assigning… one or more weights to the one or more labels to generate one or more weighted labels;
determining, …, based on the image data and the one or more weighted labels, … a peril associated with the damaged vehicle and a repair or replacement cost associated with the damaged vehicle; and
determining … that the peril satisfies the peril condition specified in the stored … file.”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification7, the above claim limitations fundamental economic insurance practices, including steps of (A) receiving image data including a first image depicting vehicle damage, as well as a second image depicting text associated with the damaged vehicle (B), reviewing the second digital image to determine vehicle ID information and keywords associated with the incident, (C) generating labels based on the most relevant keywords pertaining to the vehicle damage, (D) weighing the relative importance of the labels derived from those keywords, (E), determining, based on the weighted labels and image data, a peril associated with the damaged vehicle and a repair or replacement cost associated with the damaged vehicle, and (F) determining the determined peril satisfies the peril condition specified in the stored file. (Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo Test: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
The aforementioned determination made under step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis is supported by the following8:
¶2 of Applicant Specification, emphasis added: This disclosure generally relates to detecting damage, loss, and/or other conditions associated with an automobile and human passengers, operators, and/or pedestrians to determine risk levels for insurance to better and/or more efficiently match price to risk.
¶3 of United States Patent Application Publication US-20150103170-A1 (Nelson), emphasis added: “generating automobile repair estimates (… as part of an insurance claim settlement) usually involves an adjustor … documenting the damage to the vehicle to enable … an insurance claim to be processed. A typical part of this documentation process involves the adjustor taking various images or photographs of the vehicle and, in particular, of the damaged portions of the vehicle, using a camera device. These photographs are then later uploaded to a computer device […], where the adjustor manually labels the photos with information indicating, for example, the portion of the vehicle depicted in the photo […] and […] some vehicle identification (such as a vehicle identification number or VIN, a make, model and year of the vehicle, a license number of the vehicle, etc.) that is needed to document the identity of the vehicle depicted in the photographs or videos.”
¶97 of Applicant Specification discloses the weights correspond to risks levels: “…a higher risk weight to the RURAL label, due to the increased likelihood of collision with animals”.
Case law precedent indicates that the specificity of the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea any less abstract – see the following:
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “A narrow claim directed to an abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible …”.
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, 839 F.3d at 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “… a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”.
This judicial exception recited in independent claims 1, 31, and 36 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test9:
The additional elements “computer-implemented”, “via a processor”, “digital”, “performing, by the processor, an optical character recognition operation on the … digital image”, “by inputting … into a first machine learning model…” “via the processor”, “electronic”, “via the processor and by a trained machine learning model”, and “inputting the image data into a trained machine learning algorithm model” of claim 1, the additional elements of “A computer configured to … comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, that when executed, cause the processor to:”, “digital”, “perform an optical character recognition operation on the second digital image to … as an output of the optical character recognition operation”, “by inputting … into a first machine learning model…”, “electronic”, “using a trained machine learning model”, and “inputting the image data into a trained machine learning model” of claim 31, and the additional elements “…One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the processor to:..…”, “digital”, “performing, an optical character recognition operation on the (second) digital image”, “by inputting … into a first machine learning model…”, “electronic”, and “and inputting the image data into a trained machine learning algorithm model” of claim 36 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) is insufficient to impart patent eligibility under Alice. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited insurance practices – see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2)). This stance is supported by Applicant specification’s “Field of Invention” section disclosing “This disclosure generally relates to detecting damage, loss, and/or other conditions associated with an automobile and human passengers, operators, and/or pedestrians to determine risk levels for insurance to better and/or more efficiently match price to risk.” (emphasis added), Applicant specification acknowledging the claimed computer components may include those of general-purpose computers10, and Applicant specification describing embodiments of the claimed “processor”, and “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” at a high degree of generality, such that the aforementioned are indistinguishable from elements of general-purpose computers. Therefore, the claimed processors and non-transitory computer readable storage media is understood to correspond to generic computer components that are so well-known in the art that it does not require additional delineation. Lastly, the “…by a trained machine learning model…” is claimed at a high degree of generality and merely used as a basis for determining at a high degree of generality, so as to achieve desired results rooted in the abstract idea recited (i.e., “…determining … a peril associated with the damaged vehicle and a repair or replacement cost associated with the damaged vehicle”,). Accordingly, even when considered as an ordered combination, the claims’ additional elements are indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added to the abstract idea ‘after the fact’ / ‘post-hoc’, which is insufficient to indicate improvements to computer functionality11.
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). For example, the instant claims do not include any specific technical details as to how the claimed trained machine learning model is specifically employed, so as to enable the processor to “…determine … a peril associated with the damaged vehicle...[etc.,]”, beyond merely stating “… based on…inputting the image data into a trained machine learning model…” (emphasis added). This supports the aforementioned determination that the additional elements of the independent claims are merely applied. See MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1): “…claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’”.
The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement under Alice/Mayo analysis, and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract insurance practices within a particular technological environment, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 21, 31, and 36 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B12, claims 21, 31, and 36 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 31, 31, and 36, each when viewed as a whole, do not include elements amounting to significantly more, as their additional elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract insurance practices concept within a particular technological environment – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Even though claims 21, 31, and 36 utilize machine learning, processors, memory, etc., the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited. Nothing in the claims indicate specific steps undertaken by the computer elements that are beyond conventional functionality of generic computer elements being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea it is merely used as a tool for – the claimed computer implementation itself is wholly generic when viewed in light of the technological environment of computers and the technical field of machine learning. Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Hence, independent claims 21, 31, and 36 are not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have each been given the full Alice/Mayo analysis, including analyzing the additional elements both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims are also held patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claims 22, 23, 25, 32, and 37, their limitations each fail to provide any further additional elements outside the abstract idea, and only further specify the abstract loan application processing concept. Furthermore, their limitations do not indicate that the previously mentioned additional elements of their respective parent claims successfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, either individually or as an ordered combination. Accordingly, claims 22 and 25 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 22 and 25 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 24, it further recites the abstract fundamental economic practices of mitigating insurance risk, per reciting limitation “updating the stored … file to indicate the repair or replacement cost”. The additional elements, “electronic” and “by the processor” do no more than merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claims 26, 39, and 46 they recite further details of the abstract fundamental economic practices of mitigating insurance risk, per limitations “… identify a type of vehicle, respective vehicle features or characteristics, a peril associated with the vehicle, and a repair or replacement cost associated with the vehicle …”. The additional elements “inputting the image data and the one or more weighted labels into a second machine learning model, and … the computer-implemented method…”, “training, via the processor and by using training data generated based on historical data, the machine learning model to” and “dynamically retraining, by the processor, the machine learning model with data associated with real-time updates to other electronic files” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claim 27, it further recites details of the abstract fundamental economic practices of mitigating insurance risk, per limitations “…based at least in part on the stored …file, determining … a user associated with the stored … file; causing presentation, [for] the user associated with the stored … file; and receiving … additional information associated with the damaged vehicle”. The additional elements, “electronic”, “via the processor”, “user interface”, and “user device” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claim 28, it further recites details of the abstract fundamental economic practices of mitigating insurance risk, per limitations “wherein the … image is submitted …”. The additional elements, “digital”, “webpage”, “website”, and “mobile device” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claim 30, it further recites details of the abstract fundamental economic practices of mitigating insurance risk, per limitations “… wherein the image data is received …; and causing presentation of an indication of the repair or replacement cost via a user …”. The additional elements, “establishing a network connection”, “processor”, “electronic device”, and “user interface of the electronic device” and “network connection” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claim 34, it further recites details of the abstract fundamental economic practices of mitigating insurance risk, per limitations “wherein the first … image is submitted …”. The additional elements “digital”, “website”, “user interface”, “input field”, “digital image input” and “servers”, do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claim 35, it further recites details of the abstract fundamental economic practices of mitigating insurance risk, per limitations “… receive additional image data associated with the damaged vehicle; based on the additional image, a second peril associated with the damaged vehicle; and verify, based at least in part on the first peril and the second peril being a same peril, that the first peril satisfies the peril condition specified in the stored … file”. The additional element “electronic”, does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claim 43 it further recites details of the abstract fundamental economic practices of mitigating insurance risk, per limitations “… causing presentation of a prompt … [to] a user … associated with the damaged vehicle; receiving, in response to the prompt, the first … image …; and receiving, in response to the prompt, the second … image inputted through the user interface”. The additional elements “user interface of an electronic device, wherein the electronic device is separate from the processor;”, “via a network through which the processor and the electronic device are connected”, and “uploaded through the user interface”, do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claim 44, it further recites details of the abstract idea per reciting “based on the peril satisfying the peril condition specified in the stored … file, updating … the training data include the image data, the one or more weighted labels, and the repair or replacement cost associated with the damaged vehicle to generate updated training data;”. The additional element “retraining, by the processor and using the updated training data, the second machine learning model”, does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claim 45, it further recites details of the abstract idea per reciting “updating, … the peril associated with the damaged vehicle and the repair or replacement cost associated with the damaged vehicle;”. The additional element “adjusting, via the processor, a first weight corresponding to a first label of the one or more labels based at least in part on a second label being added to the one or more labels; and updating, based at least in part on the second label and the adjusted first weight, … the [output]”, does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
No Prior Art Rejection
The closest prior art of record is the same as the prior art referenced in the
11/05/2025 Non-Final Rejection (i.e., Ives, Strange, Ingelbrecht, Devereaux, Collins ‘692, Drennan III, Galia, and Gore).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20180060684 A1 (Ma). Ma is generally pertinent for disclosing image data showing images of a vehicle and license plates input into a machine learning model (Fig. 4). At least ¶85 is also relevant: “…The present application adopts an ORB extraction method to extract all the local feature points of a target vehicle in a first image and then utilizes a Bag of Words (BoW) model to quantify the local feature points of the target vehicle…”
Non-Patent Literature, “Car-Rec: A Real Time Car Recognition System” (Jang). Jang discloses (abstract, section 1.1): “[abstract]… This work demonstrates a recognition application, based upon the SURF feature descriptor algorithm, which fuses bag-of-words and structural verification techniques. The resulting system is applied to the domain of car recognition and achieves accurate (> 90%) and real-time performance when searching databases containing thousands of images… [section 1.1] This framework (see Figure 1) consists of four stages: 1. Feature descriptor extraction: Speeded-Up Robust Features (SURF) [5] is used to localize interest points in an image and describe their features as a vector of values. 2. Word quantization: feature descriptors are efficiently converted from high-dimensional vectors into single value words. This is accomplished using a vocabulary tree trained on a database of car-related image features. Image database search: the quantized words are treated as a query in an car image database. This stage is implemented with Lucene [1], and follows the bag-of-words [7] model.”.
PNG
media_image1.png
209
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20120263346 A1 (Datta). At least ¶¶31, 55, 56 are relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170169369 A1 (Garnavi). At least ¶¶16, 17, 19 and Fig 3 are relevant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272-3955. 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.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 I.e., the subject matter claimed.
2 See pages 12-13 of Remarks.
3 See page 13 of Remarks.
4 See MPEP § 2106 I.
5 See MPEP §§ 2106.04 I, II, (d) I.
6 See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II
7 See MPEP § 2111.
8 MPEP §2106.07, underline emphasis added: “When evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter.”
10 See page ¶201 of Applicant’s filed specification.
11 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)(2) & 2106.05(a) I.
12 See MPEP § 2106.05.
Prosecution Insights