DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of December 27, 2023. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. The generically recited computer elements such as “a management service of a cloud server” do not add a meaningful limitation…” applies to Step 2A or Step 2B of the analysis. The statement applies to Step 2B. The additional elements of “a management service of a cloud server” are recited in a generic manner for performing generic functions relating to ie “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.. Therefore, the improvement, as claimed, continues to be a business solution to a business problem and not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered and are persuasive.so therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of verifying odometer readings.
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 10 and 19.
Claim 1 is directed to a method which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites …-implemented method for reducing fraud by remotely verifying odometer mileage of a …comprising: using a … and a tamperproof photo capture algorithm to (a) capture a first image of the … and (b) capture a second … of the vehicle’s identity computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a … of a … at a first time, a request to update an account balance of a user account with a differential amount;
determining, by the … of the …, a source of the request;
generating, by the … of the …, a priority level for the request based on the determined source of the request;
processing, by the … of the …, the request based on the generated priority level;
generating, by an analysis service of the …, a risk model associated with the user account based on electronic information associated with the user account;
determining, by the analysis service of the …, a supplemental amount associated with the user account based on the generated risk model;
determining, by the analysis service of the …, whether the differential amount is less than or equal to the supplemental amount; and
automatically updating the account balance of the user account, by the … of the … at a second time later than the first time, with the differential amount responsive to determining that the differential amount is less than or equal to the supplemental amount.
These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe an abstract idea of generating a risk model and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles including mitigating risk). The claim also recites a management service of a cloud server, which does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
4. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, e.g., Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles including mitigating risk). The claim also recites a management service of a cloud server which is recited at a high level of generality. This generic limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
5. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements; a vehicle, portable computing device, first image, second image, and remote server 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. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
6. Claim 2 recites “wherein the source of the request comprises an application associated with the user account, a vendor system, or a card associated with the user account.” which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
7. Claim 3 recites “wherein the generating the priority level for the request comprises: generating, by the management service of the cloud server, a first priority level for the request from the card associated with the user account or the vendor system, or generating, by the management service of the cloud server, a second priority level for the request from the application associated with the user account, wherein the first priority level is different from the second priority level” which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
8. Claim 4 recites “wherein the processing the request comprises: processing, by the management service of the cloud server, the request within a first time period based on the generated first priority level, or processing, by the management service of the cloud server, the request within a second time period based on the generated second priority level” which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
9. Claim 5 recites “further comprising: retrieving, by the cloud server, the electronic information associated with the user account; and performing, by the cloud server, verification of the retrieved electronic information” which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
10. Claim 6 recites “wherein: the electronic information comprises pieces of electronic information; the generating the risk model comprises classifying, by the analysis service of the cloud server, the supplemental amount as a classified supplemental amount using a supplemental amount determination machine learning (ML) system trained by a process comprising: classifying each piece of electronic information as a classified piece of electronic information, generating, for each classified piece of electronic information, a respective predicted supplemental amount, generating, for each predicted supplemental amount, a respective predicted probability value that the predicted supplemental amount will be repaid within a respective predetermined period of time, modifying, based on the respective predicted probability value, the respective predicted supplemental amount to generate a respective modified predicted supplemental amount, and generating the classified supplemental amount based on the modified predicted supplemental amounts; and the determining the supplemental amount comprises determining, by the analysis service of the cloud server using the supplemental amount determination ML system, the supplemental amount based on the classified supplemental amount” which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
11. Claim 7 recites “further comprising: automatically updating the account balance of the user account, by the management service of the cloud server at a second time later than the first time, with the supplemental amount responsive to determining that the differential amount is more than or equal to the supplemental amount” which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
12. Claim 8 recites “further comprising: automatically updating the account balance of the user account, by the management service of the cloud server at a second time later than the first time, with the supplemental amount responsive to determining that the differential amount is less than or equal to the supplemental amount” which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Calvin Hewitt can be reached on 571-272-6709. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights