DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 17/985,840 (11/12/22) filed on 7/28/25.
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 - 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claims 1 - 12:
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a machine (i.e. a system).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves assigning a new service request for a loss site; recording a loss site visit date and time for a human inspection of the loss site; providing a plurality of pre-prompted questions relating to the loss site; receiving data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising images collected, geographic location of the loss site, and a size of each of the articles present at the loss site; determining from the data representing the inventory of at least a portion of the articles present at the loss site, a classification for each of the articles in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria; assigning a base designation to each of the articles in the inventory, the base designation comprising a sequential arrangement of four indicating sets of two characters comprising eight characters total, a first indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a group, a second indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a class, a third indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a type, and a fourth indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a style of the article; creating a first sheet comprising a record of the data representing the inventory of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising the base designation for each of the articles in the inventory, images of articles in the inventory, and size of the articles in the inventory; automatically converting the first sheet into a second sheet with a first programming script, the second sheet comprising a formatted document providing the data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site in a readable format automatically organizing images in subdirectories with room names within the second sheet;
automatically storing the second sheet and image subdirectories on a web drive;
storing scripts and setting in a blank master sheet, and loading the scripts and settings in the second sheet; generating a list from the second sheet, comprising at least one of: chargeable activities and chargeable articles associated with restoration at the loss site:
launching a Third Party Estimate (TPE) from a second script that generates .csv files out of an INFO & TPE CSV sheet; automatically sending the .csv files to an Outputs Folder; and automatically entering required information to generate an estimate utilizing a selected Third Party Estimate, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (creating an inventory of items present at a loss site; estimating a restoration cost of a loss site); commercial or legal interactions (creating an inventory of items present at a loss site; estimating a restoration cost of a loss site); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (assigning, recording, providing, receiving, determining, creating, automatically converting, automatically storing, storing, loading, generating, launching, automatically sending, automatically entering, etc.).
The mere nominal recitation of a “system comprising: a camera; a GPS receiver;
a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to assigning a new service request for a loss site; recording a loss site visit date and time for a human inspection of the loss site; providing a plurality of pre-prompted questions relating to the loss site; receiving data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising images collected, geographic location of the loss site, and a size of each of the articles present at the loss site; determining from the data representing the inventory of at least a portion of the articles present at the loss site, a classification for each of the articles in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria; assigning a base designation to each of the articles in the inventory, the base designation comprising a sequential arrangement of four indicating sets of two characters comprising eight characters total, a first indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a group, a second indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a class, a third indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a type, and a fourth indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a style of the article; creating a first sheet comprising a record of the data representing the inventory of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising the base designation for each of the articles in the inventory, images of articles in the inventory, and size of the articles in the inventory; automatically converting the first sheet into a second sheet with a first programming script, the second sheet comprising a formatted document providing the data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site in a readable format automatically organizing images in subdirectories with room names within the second sheet; automatically storing the second sheet and image subdirectories on a web drive; storing scripts and setting in a blank master sheet, and loading the scripts and settings in the second sheet; generating a list from the second sheet, comprising at least one of: chargeable activities and chargeable articles associated with restoration at the loss site: launching a Third Party Estimate (TPE) from a second script that generates .csv files out of an INFO & TPE CSV sheet; automatically sending the .csv files to an Outputs Folder; and automatically entering required information to generate an estimate utilizing a selected Third Party Estimate.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claim encompasses the user manually assigning a new service request for a loss site; recording a loss site visit date and time for a human inspection of the loss site; providing a plurality of pre-prompted questions relating to the loss site; receiving data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising images collected, geographic location of the loss site, and a size of each of the articles present at the loss site; determining from the data representing the inventory of at least a portion of the articles present at the loss site, a classification for each of the articles in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria; assigning a base designation to each of the articles in the inventory, the base designation comprising a sequential arrangement of four indicating sets of two characters comprising eight characters total, a first indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a group, a second indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a class, a third indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a type, and a fourth indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a style of the article; creating a first sheet comprising a record of the data representing the inventory of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising the base designation for each of the articles in the inventory, images of articles in the inventory, and size of the articles in the inventory; automatically converting the first sheet into a second sheet with a first programming script, the second sheet comprising a formatted document providing the data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site in a readable format automatically organizing images in subdirectories with room names within the second sheet; automatically storing the second sheet and image subdirectories on a web drive; storing scripts and setting in a blank master sheet, and loading the scripts and settings in the second sheet; generating a list from the second sheet, comprising at least one of: chargeable activities and chargeable articles associated with restoration at the loss site: launching a Third Party Estimate (TPE) from a second script that generates .csv files out of an INFO & TPE CSV sheet; automatically sending the .csv files to an Outputs Folder; and automatically entering required information to generate an estimate utilizing a selected Third Party Estimate. NOTE: The claim is exclusively from the perspective of the “system”
The mere nominal recitation of a “system comprising: a camera; a GPS receiver;
a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of a “system comprising: a camera; a GPS receiver; a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “assigning” and “providing” steps occurring with the “graphical user interface”; and the “receiving data” step including data “collected by the camera” and “from the GPS receiver”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of using scripts (e.g., “a first programming script”; “scripts”; “a second script”) in the “automatically converting”, “storing”, “loading” and “launching” steps as claimed. The element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, “automatically sending”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “assigning”, “recording”, “determining”, “creating”, “automatically converting”, “loading”, “generating”, “launching”, “automatically entering”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data storage (e.g., “automatically storing”, “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at a loss site), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “system comprising: a camera; a GPS receiver; a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium” is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). The “system comprising: a camera; a GPS receiver; a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium” limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, there are not additional element(s) the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 11/12/22 does not provide any indication that the invention involves anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Jakka, Wheeling and Turpin operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, “automatically sending”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “assigning”, “recording”, “determining”, “creating”, “automatically converting”, “loading”, “generating”, “launching”, “automatically entering”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data storage (e.g., “automatically storing”, “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, “automatically sending”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “assigning”, “recording”, “determining”, “creating”, “automatically converting”, “loading”, “generating”, “launching”, “automatically entering”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data storage (e.g., “automatically storing”, “storing”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Versata Dev. Group, OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 12 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. NOTE: With respect to claims 3, although the claim further recites a “user device” comprising components including “a graphical user interface”, the component(s) are only nominally or tangentially to the claimed invention and are not required or used in any of the positively recited steps or acts performed by the “system”/ “user device”.
Re Claim 20:
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 20, is/are directed to a machine (i.e. a system).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves assigning a service provider a new service request for a loss site; recording a loss site visit date and time for a human inspection of the loss site; providing a plurality of pre-prompted questions relating to the loss site; receiving data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at a loss site; determining from these data, a classification for each of the articles identified in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria, wherein the classification of each of the articles comprises a base designation indicating a plurality of attributes of the article, comprising volume of the article; generating a list comprising at least one of: chargeable activities and chargeable articles associated with restoration at the loss site; generating an estimated restoration cost, based on predetermined values associated with the list; and generating an estimated restoration cost for the loss site based at least partially on the classifications of each of the articles, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (creating an inventory of items present at a loss site; estimating a restoration cost of a loss site); commercial or legal interactions (creating an inventory of items present at a loss site; estimating a restoration cost of a loss site); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (assigning, recording, providing, receiving, determining, generating, etc.).
The mere nominal recitation of a “system comprising: a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to assigning a service provider a new service request for a loss site; recording a loss site visit date and time for a human inspection of the loss site; providing a plurality of pre-prompted questions relating to the loss site; receiving data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at a loss site; determining from these data, a classification for each of the articles identified in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria, wherein the classification of each of the articles comprises a base designation indicating a plurality of attributes of the article, comprising volume of the article; generating a list comprising at least one of: chargeable activities and chargeable articles associated with restoration at the loss site; generating an estimated restoration cost, based on predetermined values associated with the list; and generating an estimated restoration cost for the loss site based at least partially on the classifications of each of the articles.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claim encompasses the user manually assigning a service provider a new service request for a loss site; recording a loss site visit date and time for a human inspection of the loss site; providing a plurality of pre-prompted questions relating to the loss site; receiving data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at a loss site; determining from these data, a classification for each of the articles identified in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria, wherein the classification of each of the articles comprises a base designation indicating a plurality of attributes of the article, comprising volume of the article; generating a list comprising at least one of: chargeable activities and chargeable articles associated with restoration at the loss site; generating an estimated restoration cost, based on predetermined values associated with the list; and generating an estimated restoration cost for the loss site based at least partially on the classifications of each of the articles. NOTE: The claim is exclusively from the perspective of the “system”.
The mere nominal recitation of a “system comprising: a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of a “system comprising: a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “assigning” and “providing” steps occurring with the “graphical user interface”. The element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “assigning”, “recording”, “determining”, “generating”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at a loss site), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “system comprising: a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium” is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). The “system comprising: a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium” limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, there are not additional element(s) the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 11/12/22 does not provide any indication that the invention involves anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Jakka, Wheeling and Turpin operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “assigning”, “recording”, “determining”, “generating”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “assigning”, “recording”, “determining”, “generating”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claim(s) are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Regarding claim 1 - 12:
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to insurance (i.e., creating an inventory of items present at a loss site; estimating a restoration cost of a loss site). NOTE: Consistent with applicant’s specification which suggests the invention is in the field of insurance and these tasks relate to those undertaken by insurance companies and human operators working on their behalf (e.g., adjuster, employee, third party contractor). See at least para. [0002] [0004] - [0007] [0009] of applicant’s specification as filed 11/12/22.
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. Insurance relates “contracts” and “legal obligations” because they impose contractual obligations enforceable by law (i.e., creating an inventory of items present at a loss site; estimating a restoration cost of a loss site). NOTE: Consistent with applicant’s specification which suggests the invention is in the field of insurance and these tasks relate to those undertaken by insurance companies and human operators working on their behalf (e.g., adjuster, employee, third party contractor). See at least para. [0002] [0004] - [0007] [0009] of applicant’s specification as filed 11/12/22.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, following rules or instructions (e.g., assigning, recording, providing, receiving, determining, creating, automatically converting, automatically storing, storing, loading, generating, launching, automatically sending, automatically entering, etc.).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “assigning a service provider a new service request for a loss site …..; recording a loss site visit date and time for a human inspection of the loss site”; “determining from the data representing the inventory of at least a portion of the articles present at the loss site, a classification for each of the articles in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria; assigning a base designation to each of the articles in the inventory, the base designation comprising a sequential arrangement of four indicating sets of two characters comprising eight characters total, a first indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a group, a second indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a class, a third indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a type, and a fourth indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a style of the article; creating a first sheet comprising a record of the data representing the inventory of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising the base designation for each of the articles in the inventory, images of articles in the inventory, and size of the articles in the inventory; automatically converting the first sheet into a second sheet with a first programming script, the second sheet comprising a formatted document providing the data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site in a readable format automatically organizing images in subdirectories with room names within the second sheet”; “loading the scripts and settings in the second sheet; generating a list from the second sheet, comprising at least one of: chargeable activities and chargeable articles associated with restoration at the loss site: launching a Third Party Estimate (TPE) from a second script that generates .csv files out of an INFO & TPE CSV sheet”; and “automatically entering required information to generate an estimate utilizing a selected Third Party Estimate.”) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, 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. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1 - 12 suggest the steps or acts occur on a computer (i.e., “A system comprising: a camera; a GPS receiver; a computer system, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium …..”), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding claim 20:
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to insurance (i.e., creating an inventory of items present at a loss site; estimating a restoration cost of a loss site). NOTE: Consistent with applicant’s specification which suggests the invention is in the field of insurance and these tasks relate to those undertaken by insurance companies and human operators working on their behalf (e.g., adjuster, employee, third party contractor). See at least para. [0002] [0004] - [0007] [0009] of applicant’s specification as filed 11/12/22.
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. Insurance relates “contracts” and “legal obligations” because they impose contractual obligations enforceable by law (i.e., creating an inventory of items present at a loss site; estimating a restoration cost of a loss site). NOTE: Consistent with applicant’s specification which suggests the invention is in the field of insurance and these tasks relate to those undertaken by insurance companies and human operators working on their behalf (e.g., adjuster, employee, third party contractor). See at least para. [0002] [0004] - [0007] [0009] of applicant’s specification as filed 11/12/22.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, following rules or instructions (e.g., assigning, recording, providing, receiving, determining, generating, etc.).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “assigning a service provider a new service request for a loss site …..; recording a loss site visit date and time for a human inspection of the loss site”; and “determining from these data, a classification for each of the articles identified in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria, wherein the classification of each of the articles comprises a base designation indicating a plurality of attributes of the article, comprising volume of the article; generating a list comprising at least one of: chargeable activities and chargeable articles associated with restoration at the loss site; generating an estimated restoration cost, based on predetermined values associated with the list; and
generating an estimated restoration cost for the loss site based at least partially on the classifications of each of the articles.”) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, 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. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claim 20 suggest the steps or acts occur on a computer (i.e., “A system comprising: a computer system, the computer system further comprising: at least one processor; a graphical user interface; and a computer-usable medium …..”), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claims 1 - 12:
First, applicant argues improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
The “improvements” (e.g., “Rather, the amended claims describe steps performed by a computer which improve the efficiency of the associated computer processes of taking raw data from a loss site and converting it into a usable form for presentation as a loss estimate.” See pg. 10 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/28/25; “directed to an improvement of processing efficiency”. See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/28/25). Estimation is directed to the underlying abstract, not the functioning of the computer itself. What applicant is really arguing is the use of a computer as a tool for the benefits of automation itself (e.g., “processing efficiency”).
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
Second, contrary to applicant’s arguments, many of the features applicant relies upon are “insignificant”. For example, they amount to “necessary data gathering and outputting” (e.g., The use of “a camera”; “a GPS receiver”; and “graphical user interface” for “providing a plurality of pre-prompted questions relating to the loss site on the graphical user interface; receiving data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising images collected by the camera, geographic location of the loss site from the GPS receiver, and a size of each of the articles present at the loss site;”). For example, they pertain to selecting a particular data source or type to be manipulated (e.g., “determining from the data representing the inventory of at least a portion of the articles present at the loss site, a classification for each of the articles in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria; assigning a base designation to each of the articles in the inventory, the base designation comprising a sequential arrangement of four indicating sets of two characters comprising eight characters total, a first indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a group, a second indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a class, a third indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a type, and a fourth indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a style of the article; creating a first sheet comprising a record of the data representing the inventory of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising the base designation for each of the articles in the inventory, images of articles in the inventory, and size of the articles in the inventory; automatically converting the first sheet into a second sheet with a first programming script, the second sheet comprising a formatted document providing the data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site in a readable format automatically organizing images in subdirectories with room names within the second sheet;”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “providing a plurality of pre-prompted questions relating to the loss site on the graphical user interface; receiving data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising images collected by the camera, geographic location of the loss site from the GPS receiver, and a size of each of the articles present at the loss site”; and “automatically sending the .csv files to an Outputs Folder;”); analyzing it (e.g., “assigning a service provider a new service request for a loss site, with the graphical user interface; recording a loss site visit date and time for a human inspection of the loss site”; “determining from the data representing the inventory of at least a portion of the articles present at the loss site, a classification for each of the articles in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria; assigning a base designation to each of the articles in the inventory, the base designation comprising a sequential arrangement of four indicating sets of two characters comprising eight characters total, a first indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a group, a second indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a class, a third indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a type, and a fourth indicating set of the four indicating sets representing a style of the article; creating a first sheet comprising a record of the data representing the inventory of articles present at the loss site, the data comprising the base designation for each of the articles in the inventory, images of articles in the inventory, and size of the articles in the inventory; automatically converting the first sheet into a second sheet with a first programming script, the second sheet comprising a formatted document providing the data representing an inventory of at least a portion of articles present at the loss site in a readable format automatically organizing images in subdirectories with room names within the second sheet”; “loading the scripts and settings in the second sheet; generating a list from the second sheet, comprising at least one of: chargeable activities and chargeable articles associated with restoration at the loss site: launching a Third Party Estimate (TPE) from a second script that generates .csv files out of an INFO & TPE CSV sheet”; and “automatically entering required information to generate an estimate utilizing a selected Third Party Estimate.”) and storing certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., “automatically storing the second sheet and image subdirectories on a web drive; storing scripts and setting in a blank master sheet,”) merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
Regarding claim 20:
First, applicant argues improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
The “improvements” (e.g., “Rather, the amended claims describe steps performed by a computer which improve the efficiency of the associated computer processes of taking raw data from a loss site and converting it into a usable form for presentation as a loss estimate.” See pg. 10 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/28/25; “directed to an improvement of processing efficiency”. See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/28/25). Estimation is directed to the underlying abstract, not the functioning of the computer itself. What applicant is really arguing is the use of a computer as a tool for the benefits of automation itself (e.g., “processing efficiency”).
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
Second, contrary to applicant’s arguments, many of the features applicant relies upon are “insignificant”. For example, they amount to “necessary data gathering and outputting” (e.g., The use of a “graphical user interface” for “providing a plurality of pre-prompted questions relating to the loss site on the graphical user interface”.). For example, they pertain to selecting a particular data source or type to be manipulated (e.g., “determining from these data, a classification for each of the articles identified in the inventory according to predetermined classification criteria, wherein the classification of each of the articles comprises a base designation indicating a plurality of attributes of the article, comprising volume of the article;”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “providing a plurality of pre-prompted