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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the RCE filed on 10/1/2025.
Claims 21, 25, 29, 30, 31, 34-38 and 42 are currently amended.
Claims 45-49 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 and 39 were canceled.
Therefore, claims 21-38 and 40-49 are pending and addressed below.
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/1/2025 has been entered.
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 21-38 and 40-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 21-38 and 40-49 are directed to a method, a system, a non-transitory computer storage medium, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…capturing a first image of a first object, the first image being captured at a first time during an inspection of a location; determining a first geographic location of the computing device at the first time in which the first image of the first object is captured; capturing a second image of a second object, the second image being captured at a second time different from the first time during the inspection of the location; determining a second geographic location of the computing device at the second time in which the second image of the second object is captured; mapping out the first geographic location and the second geographic location, and output a path taken during the first inspection”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the method claimed of a processor and a camera of a computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “capturing…a first and a second images…; determining…a first and a second geographic locations; mapping out… the first and the second geographic locations…”, and output…a path…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the processor and the camera that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “capturing…a first and a second images…; determining…a first and a second geographic locations; mapping out… the first and the second geographic locations…”, and output…a path…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-28, 40, 41, 43, 45 and 46 are dependent on claim 21. Therefore, claims 22-28, 40, 41, 43, 45 and 46 are directed to the same abstract idea of claim 21. Claims 22-28, 40, 41, 43, 45 and 46 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor included in the dependent claims 22-24, 43, 45, 46 and the trained machine learning model included in the dependent claims 26-28 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “determining…difference indicative of damage…” (claim 22); “determining… a damage estimate…” (claim 23); “determining…the difference of the first object or the portion of the first object…” (claim 24); “determining…of the difference comprising processing the images…” (claim 26); “inputting…a plurality of pairs of images…” (claim 27); “inputting…times and data indicating extent of damage…” (claim 28); “displaying… a third image; overlaying… a representation of an object onto the image; receiving … a user input…” (claim 40); capturing…a third image of the first object; performing…a comparison of the features of the object; determining… at least one difference associated with the first object…” (claim 43); determining…the geographic locations…(claim 45); generating…a map of the location…” (claim 46), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 22-28, 40, 41, 43, 45 and 46 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor included in the dependent claims 22-24, 43, 45, 46 and the trained machine learning model included in the dependent claims 26-28 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “determining…difference indicative of damage…” (claim 22); “determining… a damage estimate…” (claim 23); “determining…the difference of the first object or the portion of the first object…” (claim 24); “determining…of the difference comprising processing the images…” (claim 26); “inputting…a plurality of pairs of images…” (claim 27); “inputting…times and data indicating extent of damage…” (claim 28); “displaying… a third image; overlaying… a representation of an object onto the image; receiving … a user input…” (claim 40); capturing…a third image of the first object; performing…a comparison of the features of the object; determining… at least one difference associated with the first object…” (claim 43); determining…the geographic locations…(claim 45); generating…a map of the location…” (claim 46), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 22-28, 40, 41, 43, 45 and 46 are not patent eligible.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…receiving a first image of an object, the first image being captured at a first time, wherein the first image is captured in response to a first user input to capture the first image representative of a first field of view of the camera of the user device at the first time; wherein the first image depicts an appliance;
determining data indicative of a type of the appliance depicted in the first image; sending the type of the appliance; receiving a second image of the object, the second image being captured at a second time different from the first time, wherein the second image is captured in response to a second user input to capture the second image representative of a second field of view at the second time”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the computer claimed of a camera of a user device and a server that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving…and capturing…a first image of an object; determining…data of a type of the appliance…; sending…the type of the appliance; receiving…and capturing…a second image…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the camera of the user device and the server that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving…and capturing…a first image of an object; determining…data of a type of the appliance…; sending…the type of the appliance; receiving…and capturing…a second image…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 30-38, 44 and 47 are dependent on claim 29. Therefore, claims 30-38, 44 and 47 are directed to the same abstract idea of claim 29. Claims 30-38, 44 and 47 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the display of the user computing device and the processor included in the dependent claims 30 and 32-38 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving…data, displaying…an inspection indicator…; associating…the first image…” (claim 30); “displaying… the inspection indicator” (claim 32); “displaying…a list of room, instructions for capturing the image and a question” (claim 33, claim 35 and claim 36); “receiving…data, associating…data” (claim 34, claim 37, claim 38), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the display of the user computing device and the processor included in the dependent claims 30 and 32-38 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving…data, displaying…an inspection indicator…; associating…the first image…” (claim 30); “displaying… the inspection indicator” (claim 32); “displaying…a list of room, instructions for capturing the image and a question” (claim 33, claim 35 and claim 36); “receiving…data, associating…data” (claim 34, claim 37, claim 38), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 30-38, 44 and 47 are not patent eligible.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…a list of a plurality of properties for which an inspection is to be completed; receive a first signal indicative of a user selection of a property from the list of the plurality of properties; after receipt of the first signal indicative of the user selection of the property and in response to the first signal, display a list of rooms associated with the property; receive a second signal indicative of a user selection of a room of the list of rooms; after receipt of the second signal indicative of the user selection of the room and in response to the second signal, display …a description of an object to be captured; receive a third signal indicative of a user input …to capture the image; and after receipt of the third signal indicative of the user input and in response to the third signal, display at least one of the image captured or a prompt about a condition of the room soliciting a user response”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claimed of a processor, a display of a user device and a camera that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “display…the first, second, third and fourth user interfaces that comprise a list of the properties, a list of rooms, the description of an object to be captured …; receive… the first, second and third signals indicative of a user selection to cause to capture…the images…; and display… the fourth user interface comprising the image captured or a prompt about a condition of the room soliciting a user response”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the processor, the display of the user device and the camera that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “display…the first, second, third and fourth user interfaces that comprise a list of the properties, a list of rooms, the description of an object to be captured …; receive… the first, second and third signals indicative of a user selection to cause to capture…the images…; and display… the fourth user interface comprising the image captured or a prompt about a condition of the room soliciting a user response”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 48-49 are dependent on claim 42. Therefore, claims 48-49 are directed to the same abstract idea of claim 42. Claims 48-49 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, claims 48-49 further recite the limitations that do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations of the claim do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not are not eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 21-38 and 40-49 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant submits that each of the independent claims as amended are eligible at least because they do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One and at least because even if those claims are considered to recite an abstract idea, the claims recite a practical application of such an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two…” (Please see the remarks on page 1).
Answer: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Office has explained above that independent claim 21 recites “…capturing a first image of a first object, the first image being captured at a first time during an inspection of a location; determining a first geographic location of the computing device at the first time in which the first image of the first object is captured; capturing a second image of a second object, the second image being captured at a second time different from the first time during the inspection of the location; determining a second geographic location of the computing device at the second time in which the second image of the second object is captured; mapping out the first geographic location and the second geographic location, and output a path taken during the first inspection”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the method claimed of a processor and a camera of a computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “capturing…a first and a second images…; determining…a first and a second geographic locations; mapping out… the first and the second geographic locations…”, and output…a path…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the processor and the camera that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “capturing…a first and a second images…; determining…a first and a second geographic locations; mapping out… the first and the second geographic locations…”, and output…a path…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 29 and claim 42 are rejected based on the same reasoning in claim 21. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN C. NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694