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 17/879,489 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VEHICLE DAMAGE IDENTIFICATION AND INSURANCE CLAIM PROCESSING" filed on March 17, 2025, with claims 1, 3-8, 11-15, and 17- 20 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2, 9, 16, and 21 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-15, and 17- 20 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 29, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 3-8, 11-15, and 17- 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 April 30, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on September 25, 2023; March 13, 2023; February 22, 2023; October 20, 2022; August 5, 2022; and January 29, 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-15, and 17- 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 state, “…generating a second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model and that is distinct from the first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model…” Examiner interpreted the claim as reading, “…generating a second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model that is distinct from the first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model…”
Independent Claim 1 states, “…after re-training the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model and, “receiving, from a second user computing device…” with a stray open quotation mark without a following closing quotation mark.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-8, 11-15, and 17- 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, 3-8, 11-15, and 17- 20 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, 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 …method for processing insurance claims, the method comprising:
receiving, …and during a period, an indication of damage to an article caused by a particular weather event, wherein the indication specifies a particular location of the article where the damage to the article occurred;
selecting, from a model …a first instance of a weather-based damage prediction model, wherein the weather-based damage prediction model was …based on one or more historical weather events that occurred proximate to the particular location and indications of damage to a plurality of articles determined to be caused by the one or more historical weather events;
receiving, from the selected first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, a first damage prediction that indicates a type and severity of damage caused by the particular weather event to the article;
communicating, to the first user … instructions that cause the first user …for indicating damage to the article and to pre-populate the one or more fields based on the first damage prediction;
after receiving, during the period and from one or more other user ….a threshold number of indications of damage to one or more other articles caused by the particular weather event, generating a second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model and that is distinct from the first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, wherein the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model is trained specifically for the particular weather event and has a higher prediction accuracy than the first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model for predicting damage caused by the particular weather event;
…the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model based on characteristics of the particular weather event and the respective indications of damage received from the respective user …
after…the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model receiving, from a second user … and during the period, an indication of damage to an article caused by the particular weather event;
and communicating, to the second user … and based on a second damage prediction generated …second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, instructions that cause the second user …. for indicating damage to the article and to pre-populate the one or more fields based on the second damage prediction.”
These limitations clearly relate to storm damage prediction modeling. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “receiving.... an indication of damage to an article” and “selecting....a first instance of a weather-based damage prediction model” encompasses a person simply determining or deciding the best statistical model relating to storm damage insurance claims. “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea… The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation… Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’”, see MPEP 2106 – III. MENTAL PROCESSES. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a one that a person may perform by thinking then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (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:
[computer-implemented][from a first user computing device][database][computing device][computing devices]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[previously trained] [re-training] [by the re-trained]:
merely applying machine learning technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[to generate a user interface that comprises one or more fields]:
generally linking to the judicial exception of user interface design
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,
“[0036] the components of the provider computing system 102. In some embodiments, the input/output circuit 124 includes any combination of hardware components, communication circuitry, and machine-readable media … [0037] The customer device 104 is a device (e.g., mobile device, laptop computer, desktop computer, tablet, smart device, public computer, etc.) that a customer of the insurance provider may use to access insurance provider resources (e.g., applications, databases, account information, websites, etc.)”.
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). The phrase “to the vehicle” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) as the Specification reads, “[0019] A vehicle may be any type of passenger or non-passenger device for transporting goods or people…” 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 the [to generate a user interface that comprises one or more fields] step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer user interface component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process: Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. … 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. … The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. 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 3:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 4:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“artificial intelligence”: generally linking to machine learning and artificial intelligence a means to perform an abstract idea
Claim 5:
“computer-implemented”, “computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“to generate the user interface”: generally linking to user interface design a means to perform an abstract idea
Claim 6:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 7:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“artificial intelligence”: generally linking to machine learning and artificial intelligence a means 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 support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. 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). The phrase “to the vehicle” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) as the Specification reads, “[0019] A vehicle may be any type of passenger or non-passenger device for transporting goods or people…” 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, the claim 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, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. 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 8 recites:
“…comprising:
receiving, …and during a period, an indication of damage to an article caused by a particular weather event, wherein the indication specifies a particular location of the article where the damage to the article occurred;
selecting, from a model …a first instance of a weather-based damage prediction model, wherein the weather-based damage prediction model was …based on one or more historical weather events that occurred proximate to the particular location and indications of damage to a plurality of articles determined to be caused by the one or more historical weather events;
receiving, from the selected first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, a first damage prediction that indicates a type and severity of damage caused by the particular weather event to the article;
communicating, to the first user … instructions that cause the first user …for indicating damage to the article and to pre-populate the one or more fields based on the first damage prediction;
after receiving, during the period and from one or more other user ….a threshold number of indications of damage to one or more other articles caused by the particular weather event, generating a second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model and that is distinct from the first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, wherein the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model is trained specifically for the particular weather event and has a higher prediction accuracy than the first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model for predicting damage caused by the particular weather event;
…the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model based on characteristics of the particular weather event and the respective indications of damage received from the respective user …
after…the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model receiving, from a second user … and during the period, an indication of damage to an article caused by the particular weather event;
and communicating, to the second user … and based on a second damage prediction generated …second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, instructions that cause the second user …. for indicating damage to the article and to pre-populate the one or more fields based on the second damage prediction.”
These limitations clearly relate to storm damage prediction modeling. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “receiving.... an indication of damage to an article” and “selecting....a first instance of a weather-based damage prediction model” encompasses a person simply determining or deciding the best statistical model relating to storm damage insurance claims. “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea… The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation… Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’”, see MPEP 2106 – III. MENTAL PROCESSES. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a one that a person may perform by thinking then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (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:
[A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more storage devices that store instruction code executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations] [from a first user computing device][database][computing device][computing devices]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[previously trained] [re-training] [by the re-trained]:
merely applying machine learning technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[to generate a user interface that comprises one or more fields]:
generally linking to the judicial exception of user interface design
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 support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. 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). The phrase “to the vehicle” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) as the Specification reads, “[0019] A vehicle may be any type of passenger or non-passenger device for transporting goods or people…” 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 8 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 the [to generate a user interface that comprises one or more fields] step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer user interface component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process: Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. … 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. … The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. 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 11:
“computing”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 12:
“computing”, “computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“to generate the user interface”: generally linking to user interface design a means to perform an abstract idea
Claim 13:
“computing”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 14:
“computing”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“artificial intelligence”: generally linking to machine learning and artificial intelligence a means 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, “[0036] the components of the provider computing system 102. In some embodiments, the input/output circuit 124 includes any combination of hardware components, communication circuitry, and machine-readable media … [0037] The customer device 104 is a device (e.g., mobile device, laptop computer, desktop computer, tablet, smart device, public computer, etc.) that a customer of the insurance provider may use to access insurance provider resources (e.g., applications, databases, account information, websites, etc.)”. 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). The phrase “to the vehicle” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) as the Specification reads, “[0019] A vehicle may be any type of passenger or non-passenger device for transporting goods or people…” 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, the claim 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, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. 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:
“…comprising:
receiving, …and during a period, an indication of damage to an article caused by a particular weather event, wherein the indication specifies a particular location of the article where the damage to the article occurred;
selecting, from a model …a first instance of a weather-based damage prediction model, wherein the weather-based damage prediction model was …based on one or more historical weather events that occurred proximate to the particular location and indications of damage to a plurality of articles determined to be caused by the one or more historical weather events;
receiving, from the selected first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, a first damage prediction that indicates a type and severity of damage caused by the particular weather event to the article;
communicating, to the first user … instructions that cause the first user …for indicating damage to the article and to pre-populate the one or more fields based on the first damage prediction;
after receiving, during the period and from one or more other user ….a threshold number of indications of damage to one or more other articles caused by the particular weather event, generating a second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model and that is distinct from the first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, wherein the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model is trained specifically for the particular weather event and has a higher prediction accuracy than the first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model for predicting damage caused by the particular weather event;
…the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model based on characteristics of the particular weather event and the respective indications of damage received from the respective user …
after…the second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model receiving, from a second user … and during the period, an indication of damage to an article caused by the particular weather event;
and communicating, to the second user … and based on a second damage prediction generated …second instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, instructions that cause the second user …. for indicating damage to the article and to pre-populate the one or more fields based on the second damage prediction.”
These limitations clearly relate to storm damage prediction modeling. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “receiving.... an indication of damage to an article” and “selecting....a first instance of a weather-based damage prediction model” encompasses a person simply determining or deciding the best statistical model relating to storm damage insurance claims. “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea… The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation… Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’”, see MPEP 2106 – III. MENTAL PROCESSES. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a one that a person may perform by thinking then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (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:
[A non-transitory computer readable medium having computer- executable instructions embodied therein that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations] [from a first user computing device][database][computing device][computing devices]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[previously trained] [re-training] [by the re-trained]:
merely applying machine learning technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[to generate a user interface that comprises one or more fields]:
generally linking to the judicial exception of user interface design
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 support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. 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). The phrase “to the vehicle” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) as the Specification reads, “[0019] A vehicle may be any type of passenger or non-passenger device for transporting goods or people…” 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 the [to generate a user interface that comprises one or more fields] step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer user interface component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process: Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. … 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. … The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. 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 17:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“artificial intelligence”: generally linking to machine learning and artificial intelligence a means to perform an abstract idea
Claim 18:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”, “wherein the instruction code causes the computing system to perform further operations”, “computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“to generate the user interface”: generally linking to user interface design a means to perform an abstract idea
Claim 19:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 20:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“artificial intelligence”: generally linking to machine learning and artificial intelligence a means 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 support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. 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). The phrase “to the vehicle” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) as the Specification reads, “[0019] A vehicle may be any type of passenger or non-passenger device for transporting goods or people…” 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, the claim 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, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 3-8, 11-15, and 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Splittstoesser ("SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING BUILDING DAMAGE", U.S. Patent Number: US 11361544 B2),in view of Hynes (“ENSEMBLE FORECAST STORM DAMAGE RESPONSE SYSTEM FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20220292408 A1)
Regarding Claim 1,
Splittstoesser teaches,
A computer-implemented method for processing insurance claims, the method comprising: receiving, from a first user computing device and during a period,
(Splittstoesser [Col 1, Lines 53-57] The DA computing device may perform a damage assessment process for a building when an insurance claim may be received and/or when the DA computing device detects an inclement weather condition in a geographic region that includes the building.
Splittstoesser [Col 4, Lines 17-20] The weather parameters may also include information associated with weather conditions of the building over a predetermined period of time.)
an indication of damage to an article caused by a particular weather event, wherein the indication specifies a particular location of the article where the damage to the article occurred;
(Splittstoesser [Col 1, Lines 26-30] To determine damage to a roof, in at least some known systems, a representative of the insurance provider (or other third party) may visit the building. The representative may assess the damage to the roof by analyzing a particular portion of the roof.
Splittstoesser [Col 1, Lins 15-17] a hail storm may impact a roof of a building. The hail may create impact holes in the roof and/or structurally weaken the roof)
selecting, from a model database, a first instance of a weather-based damage prediction model, wherein the weather-based damage prediction model was previously trained based on one or more historical weather events that occurred proximate to the particular location
(Splittstoesser [Col 1, Lines 48-50] computing device may generate a damage model for buildings based on historical damage retrieved from a historical damage database
Splittstoesser [Claim 1] train a machine learning damage model using the historical damage parameters as an input set, the trained damage model including a plurality of predictive model parameters
Splittstoesser [Col 4, Lines 10-28] historical damage parameters may include, weather parameters, building parameters, and/or environment parameters.... Environment parameters may indicate information about an environment surrounding the building that may affect potential damage to the building
Splittstoesser [Col 5, Lines 40-42] The weather database may be configured to collect and store weather data for one or more geographic regions. The geographic region may be an area that is identifiable within the weather data.)
and indications of damage to a plurality of articles determined to be caused by the one or more historical weather events;
(Splittstoesser [Claim 13] plurality of historical damage incidents for a respective plurality of buildings from a historical damage database
Splittstoesser [Col 4, Lines 22-37] Building parameters may indicate information associated with the building and its structural components, such as, but not limited to, age of the roof, material type of the roof, angle or slant of the roof, and/or other building information. ...Building parameters and/or environment parameters for historical damage may be provided by users and/or historical insurance claims for damage incidents....historical damage parameters may include other information about a damage incident, such as .... a damage status of the building. As used herein, a “damage status” may indicate whether or not the building is damaged and to what extent it is damaged. )
receiving, from the selected first instance of the weather-based damage prediction model, a first damage prediction that indicates a type and severity of damage caused by the particular weather event to the article;
(Splittstoesser [Claim 1] identify a building for a roof damage assessment by:
detecting the upcoming weather event in a geographic region including the building by accessing the weather database
Splittstoesser [Col 1, Lines 48-50] computing device may generate a damage model for buildings based on historical damage retrieved from a historical damage database
Splittstoesser [Col 17, Lines 61-65] Machine learning may involve identifying and recognizing patterns in existing data in order to facilitate making predictions for subsequent data. Models may be created based upon example inputs in order to make valid and reliable predictions
Splittstoesser [Col 4, Lines 38-43] As used herein, a “damage status” may indicate whether or not the building is damaged and to what extent it is damaged. In one example, the damage status may be “no damage”, “repairs recommended”, and/or “totaled” (i.e., the cost to repair the damage is greater than the cost to replace the damage component of the building).)
communicating, to the first user computing device, instructions that cause the first user computing device to generate a user interface that comprises one or more fields for indicating damage to the article and to pre-populate the one or more fields based on the first damage prediction;
(Splittstoesser [Abstract] A damage assessment (DA) computing device
Splittstoesser [Col 14, Line 67 - Col Line 1] present a graphical user interface (e.g., a web browser and/or a client application) to user
Splittstoesser [Claim 4] automatically pre-populate an insurance claim for an insurance policy associated with the building, wherein the insurance claim includes the damage status and at least one damage parameter)
after receiving, during the period and from one or more other user computing