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 office action is in response to applicant's communication of May 11, 2026. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn.
The claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter because they integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not merely recite the idea of identifying a repair facility. Rather, the claims recite a specific technological solution that includes several concrete implementations. The claims recite training a machine-learning model on a specific training data set of labelled historical images that depict damage to sample vehicles. This training creates correlations between damage characteristics and repair facility availability and capability. The claims then execute that trained model using electronic images of the user's damaged vehicle and the user's device location as inputs. The model output controls whether the user gains electronic access to a certified repair portal. When the model approves access, the claims recite a specific portal generation process. The system initiates API calls to repair facility computing devices to request availability and capability information. The system filters pre-authorized repair facilities using the vehicle identification number and the type or extent of damage. The system prepopulates data fields with retrieved user data. The system transmits executable instructions to the user device that cause display of a custom interface. This interface is unique to the particular user, the user's location, and the specific damage to the user's vehicle. These limitations are not merely generic computer components performing routine functions. The claims recite a particular way of using a trained machine-learning model to solve a specific problem in the field of vehicle repair. The claims recite how to determine eligibility, how to identify repair facilities, and how to generate a customized user interface. The claims do not preempt any abstract idea because others remain free to implement other methods of identifying repair facilities without performing the specific steps recited. For these reasons, the claims are directed to a practical application of any alleged abstract idea, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite "train a machine-learning (ML) model using a training data set to output an eligibility decision controlling whether the user is eligible for their user device to be granted electronic access to a certified repair portal based upon a type or extent of the damage to the damaged vehicle, the user device location, and certified repair facility availability, the training data set comprising a plurality of labelled historical images that depict damage incurred to sample vehicle and including correlations between type or extent of the damage incurred and repair facility availability and capability for repairing the type or extent of the damage incurred and further based on user location, repair facility location, and coverage terms".
The specification at paragraphs 0090-0093 describes machine learning generally. Paragraph 0090 states that "a processor or a processing element may be trained using supervised or unsupervised machine learning, and the machine learning program may employ a neural network". Paragraph 0091 states that "the machine learning programs may be trained by inputting sample data sets or certain data into the programs, such as images, object statistics and information, historical estimates, accident history that reflects the past need for a certified repair facility, and/or actual repair costs". Paragraph 0093 states that "the processing element may learn, with the user's permission or affirmative consent, to identify the repair facilities most appropriate for certain types of vehicles and certain types of damages". The Specification does not describe training an ML model to output an eligibility decision based upon, type or extent of damage to the damaged vehicle , user device location, certified repair facility availability, user location, repair facility location, or coverage terms. The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite "execute the trained ML model using the registered user data and elements of the access request, including at least the one or more electronic images and the user device location, as inputs to the trained ML model".
The Specification does not describe executing a trained ML model using electronic images and user device location as inputs. The Specification at paragraphs 0023, 0033-0034, and 0041 describes eligibility checks based on applying rules and determining whether a pay code exists. Paragraph 0023 states that "the CRSS computing device receives confirmation from the policyholder, and subsequently performs an eligibility check (e.g., a second check) to verify that the policyholder remains eligible". Paragraph 0034 states that "Eligibility may additionally be based on a variety of factors such as (i) state laws governing the policyholder's automobile insurance provisions, (ii) whether the policyholder has vehicle repair coverage, (iii) whether the reported loss is of the type covered under the policyholder's vehicle repair coverage, (iv) whether a specific provision in the policyholder's insurance policy covers repairs, (v) whether, in a vehicular accident, the other driver is at fault; and (vi) if in a vehicular accident, whether the at-fault driver's property damage coverage will pay for the policyholder's vehicle repair”. Paragraph 0041 states that "CRSS computing device 310 performs the eligibility check by determining if a pay code (e.g., cause of loss) associated with the initial loss claim submission (e.g., reported 105 loss) exists”. The Specification describes eligibility checks using rules and pay code determination, not machine learning. The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite "responsive to receiving output from the trained ML model including a decline of the access request, prevent access by the user device to the certified repair portal" and "responsive to receiving output from the trained ML model including an approval of the access request, automatically initiate real-time generation of the certified repair portal”. The Specification does not describe preventing or granting access based on the output of a trained ML model. The Specification at paragraph 0036 states "if the policyholder does not pass 110 the pre-eligibility check, the policyholder is ineligible to initiate a vehicle repair on his or her own, and the self-service vehicle rental process comes to an end 115." Paragraph 0044 states "the policyholder is ineligible to proceed with selecting a certified repair facility on his or her own, and the self-service certified repair facility selection process comes to an end 135”. Paragraph 0045 states "If CRSS computing device 310 determines that the policyholder passes 125 the eligibility check, the CRSS computing device 310 may provide the policyholder the ability to select 140 a certified repair facility”. The Specification describes pre-eligibility and eligibility checks using rules, not machine learning. The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite "responsive to receiving output from the trained ML model including a decline of the access request, prevent access by the user device to the certified repair portal" and "responsive to receiving output from the trained ML model including an approval of the access request, automatically initiate real-time generation of the certified repair portal”. The Specification does not describe preventing or granting access based on the output of a trained ML model. The Specification at paragraph [0036] states "if the policyholder does not pass 110 the pre-eligibility check, the policyholder is ineligible to initiate a vehicle repair on his or her own, and the self-service vehicle rental process comes to an end 115." Paragraph [0044] states "the policyholder is ineligible to proceed with selecting a certified repair facility on his or her own, and the self-service certified repair facility selection process comes to an end 135." Paragraph [0045] states "If CRSS computing device 310 determines that the policyholder passes 125 the eligibility check, the CRSS computing device 310 may provide the policyholder the ability to select 140 a certified repair facility". The Specification describes pre-eligibility and eligibility checks using rules, not machine learning. The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite "initiating a plurality of Application Programming Interface (API) calls to a corresponding plurality of repair facility computing devices, requesting repair facility availability and capability information for pre-authorized repair facility locations, each API call including the user device location". The Specification at paragraph 0065 states that "CRSS computing device 310 is capable of communicating with insurance network computer devices 325, and repair facility computer devices 330 through an application programming interface (API)." The Specification does not describe initiating API calls to repair facility computing devices to request repair facility availability and capability information. The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite "filtering a list of pre-authorized repair facility locations using the vehicle identification number and the type or extent of the damage to the damaged vehicle, to isolate a plurality of certified repair facilities from the list of pre-authorized repair facility locations, wherein a certified repair facility is certified to conduct the repair of the damaged vehicle under one or more coverage terms". The Specification at paragraph 0024 states "the CRSS computing device may filter the list of certified repair facilities to only display those that are certified to repair the policyholder's vehicle. This may be based on the make, model, and/or year of the vehicle, which may be determined from the vehicle identification number (VIN) and/or other policyholder information”. Paragraph 0045 states "Certified repair facilities are select service locations, which are repair facilities that are pre-authorized by the insurance provider to perform repair work, that have the capacity to repair the policyholder's vehicle, based on the materials and parts needed to repair the vehicle (based on the vehicle identification number), the extent of structural or engine damage to the vehicle (based on the point of impact), and the needed repair equipment". The Specification describes filtering based on VIN and point of impact, but does not describe filtering based on "type or extent of the damage to the damaged vehicle" as determined from electronic images using a trained ML model. The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite "transmitting a data packet to the user device including executable instructions that, when executed, cause the user device to display the certified repair portal via a display component of the user device, the certified repair portal including a custom interface unique to the registered user, the user device location, and the damage to the damaged vehicle, the custom interface including a policyholder information portion including the prepopulated one or more data fields and one or more of the certified repair facilities". The Specification at paragraph [0007] states "causing the pre-populated interface of the certified repair self-service portal to be displayed on the user device". Paragraph 0045 states "CRSS computing device 310 displays a list of certified repair facilities from which the policyholder may choose from." The Specification does not describe displaying a "custom interface unique to the registered user, the user device location, and the damage to the damaged vehicle". The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite "responsive to receiving the selection, automatically initiate the insurance vehicle repair by transmitting, via an API, a data packet to the selected certified repair facility, the data packet including selection information and at least some of the registered user data". The Specification at paragraph 0028]states "CRSS computing device 310 may transmit the certified repair facility selection information and claim information, such as the claim identifier to one or more computer devices of the selected certified repair facility". The Specification does not describe transmitting a "data packet" or transmitting "via an API". The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 depends from Claim 1 and recites "the insurance registered user data further includes coverage terms including vehicle repair provisions as of the date and time the claim identifier is generated". Claim 10 depends from Claim 9 and recites similar subject matter. The Specification at paragraph 0021 states "the policyholder identifier and the claim identifier may be used to retrieve the policyholder's automobile insurance policy as of the date and time the claim identifier is generated". The Specification describes retrieving the policy as of the date and time the claim identifier is generated, but does not describe "coverage terms including vehicle repair provisions". The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 depends from Claim 1 and recites "the registered user data further includes a vehicle material and part list based on the vehicle identification number". Claim 11 depends from Claim 9 and recites similar subject matter. The Specification at paragraph 0045 states "the capacity to repair the policyholder's vehicle, based on the materials and parts needed to repair the vehicle (based on the vehicle identification number)”. The Specification does not describe a "vehicle material and part list". The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 depends from Claim 1 and recites "the initial loss claim further includes a vehicle structural or engine damage indication based on a point of impact depicted in the one or more electronic images". Claim 12 depends from Claim 9 and recites similar subject matter. The Specification at paragraph 0045 states "the extent of structural or engine damage to the vehicle (based on the point of impact)". The Specification does not describe "a vehicle structural or engine damage indication based on a point of impact depicted in the one or more electronic images". The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 depends from Claim 1 and recites a pay code pre-validation process. Claim 13 depends from Claim 9 and recites similar subject matter. Claim 19 depends from Claim 17 and recites similar subject matter. The Specification at paragraphs 0041-0044 describes determining if a pay code exists. Paragraph 0042 states "If a pay code for the initial loss claim submission does not exist (e.g., is not open), the insurer is unable to pay for the claim". The Specification does not describe "automatically generating the pay code associated with a point of impact to the vehicle depicted in the one or more electronic images". The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 depends from Claim 1 and recites "determine, using the output from the trained ML model, the extent of damage to the damaged vehicle". Claim 14 depends from Claim 9 and recites similar subject matter. Claim 20 depends from Claim 17 and recites similar subject matter. The Specification at paragraph [0093] states "the processing element may learn ... to identify the repair facilities most appropriate for certain types of vehicles and certain types of damages". The Specification does not describe using the output from a trained ML model to determine the extent of damage to the damaged vehicle. The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 depends from Claim 1 and recites "update a claim file of the policyholder to include the certified repair facility selection, and wherein the claim file contains information associated with the initial loss claim". Claim 15 depends from Claim 9 and recites similar subject matter. The Specification at paragraph 0028 states "the CRSS computing device may update the policyholder's claim file to include the certified repair facility selection. The policyholder's claim file may contain information related to the initial loss claim submission". The Specification provides written description for this limitation. The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 depends from Claim 1 and recites "generate a file note for a claims handler, wherein the file note includes the certified repair facility selection". Claim 16 depends from Claim 9 and recites similar subject matter. The Specification at paragraph 0028 states "the CRSS computing device may also generate a file note for a claims handler. In these embodiments, the generated file note may be a message in the policyholder's claim file notifying the claims handler of the certified repair facility selection". The Specification provides written description for this limitation. The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 depends from Claim 17 and recites "the registered user data further includes at least one of: (i) coverage terms including vehicle repair provisions as of the date and time the claim identifier is generated, or (ii) a vehicle material and part list based on the vehicle identification number". The Specification at paragraph 0021 describes retrieving the policy as of the date and time the claim identifier is generated. The Specification at paragraph 0045 describes "the materials and parts needed to repair the vehicle (based on the vehicle identification number)". The Specification does not describe "coverage terms including vehicle repair provisions" or a "vehicle material and part list". The algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 September 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights