DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for continued examination of application 18/052,033 (11/02/22) filed on 05/14/26.
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, 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 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, 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a machine (i.e., automated optical fraud detector).
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 involves capture digital images, the digital images at least comprising digital images associated with one or more damaged objects of a motor vehicle, and the digital images being processed by determining a first set of attributes at least comprising damage location zones of the motor vehicle and an incident geographic location and an incident date and an incident time by processing user-provided text associated with the digital images by natural language processing, determining a second set of attributes by digital image processing of the digital images, the second set of attributes being at least indicative of at least one zone of the motor vehicle and a damage to the at least one zone, the at least one zone including at least a front center zone and/or a front left zone and/or a front right zone and/or a left zone and/or a right zone and/or a rear left zone and/or a rear right zone and/or a rear center zone and/or a wind-shield zone, and the damage including at least a dent and/or a glass shatter and/or a broken front lamp and/or a broken tail lamp and/or a scratch and/or a smash and/or a hailstone dent, and determining a third set of attributes by digital image processing of the digital images, the third set of attributes being indicative of a roof of the motor vehicle, process mobile sensor data to obtain floating car data from a driver driving the motor vehicle, the floating car data comprising time-stamped geo-localization and speed data obtained from mobiles of the motor vehicle, and determine a fourth set of attributes from the floating car data, the fourth set of attributes indicative of at least one of a passenger's route and/or trip travel time and/or estimate traffic state and/or global positioning system (GPS) data, process said digital images and the sets of attributes for existing image alteration by using an unusual pattern identification structure as a first detection, to detect an unusual damage pattern of the motor vehicle, which is associated with a damage to a motor vehicle that did not happen to the motor vehicle due to an accident or natural calamities, based on determining whether damages are to one or more zones on opposite sides of the motor vehicle and whether damage is to the zone representing the roof of the motor vehicle, wherein a rule- based identifier is set in response to the unusual damage pattern being detected, process said digital images for optical detection using an RGB image input, RGB values of the RGB image input, and provide output, trigger an ML-based identifier providing a second a fundamental economic principles or practices (detection of manipulations); commercial or legal interactions (detection of manipulations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (capture, determining, process, trigger, generate).
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “circuitry”) does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. 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 “circuitry” of an “automated optical detector” performing the positively recites steps or acts. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “determining a second set of attributes …..” by “using machine language (ML)-based convolutional neural network processing”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “determining a third set of attributes …..” by “using the ML-based convolutional neural network processing”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “process ….. said digital images for optical detection …..” occurring “via an RGB recognition module”, the “RGB values of the RGB image input being used for convolutional neural network (CNN)-based detection including (i) CNN-based pre-existing damage detection, (ii) parallel CNN-based color matching, and (iii) double JPEG compression detection using custom CNN” and “provide output of the CNN-based detection”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “trigger an ML-based identifier providing a second detection” occurs by “having as input the output of the CNN-based detection”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “process, in a second data processing cycle, the digital images” occurs “by a gradient boosted decision tree model”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “capture”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “process”, “trigger”, “generate”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering damaged object of a motor vehicle data and digital image data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) 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 11/02/22 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, pg. 1, lines 10 - 25; pg. 11, line 5+ - col. 12, line 7. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Campbell, US Pub. No. 2020/0034958; Dong, US Pub. No. 2018/0240194; Howe, US Pub. No. 2017/0270650; Chen, US Pat. No. 10,740,891; and Xu, US Pat. No. 11,748,399 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “capture”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “process”, “trigger”, “generate”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Campbell, abstract, [0009] [0010] [0011] [0012] [0013] [0014] [0016] [0018] [0019] [0021] [0023] [0024] [0031] [0032] [0040] [0043] [0044] [0046] [00048] [0049] [0050] [0053] [0054] [0056] [0058] [0060] [0061] [0063] [0064] [0065] [0066] [0069]. Dong, [0038] [0039]. Howe, [0026] [0045] [0050] [0070]. Chen, col. 22, line 46+ - col. 23, line 15; col. 40, lines 7 - 22; col. 41, line 64+ - col. 42, line 9. Xu, col. 7, lines 30 - 47; col. 8, lines 24 - 46. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “capture”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “process”, “trigger”, “generate”, 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 invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. With respect to dependent claims 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26. Like independent claim 1, dependent claims 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 are similarly directed to the abstract idea of insurance and mitigating risk (e.g., detection of manipulations). In dependent claims 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 the abstract idea is described with more specificity, but this is not sufficient to overcome 101. Like independent claim 1, dependent 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 encompasses “economic principles or practices”; “commercial or legal interactions” such as “contracts”, “legal obligations”, and “business relations”; and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Similar to independent claim 1, the steps or acts are directed to the types of tasks (e.g., (a) data receipt/ transmission; and (b) data processing) considered “well-understood, routine, and conventional.” Furthermore, dependent claim 12 introduces “at least two different visual modeling data processing structures”. The “at least two different visual modeling data processing structures” merely being used as a tool (i.e., “by independently applying at least two different visual modeling data processing structures”). Furthermore, dependent claim 26 introduces “on-board unit sensors of the motor vehicle”, but it is tangential to the claimed invention since the claimed invention is not from the perspective of the “motor vehicle” and merely serves as source of data used.
Response to Arguments
Objections
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to insurance and mitigating risk (e.g., detection of manipulations). This interpretation is consistent with the prosecution history of the instant application.
For example, pg. 1, lines 10 - 25 of applicant’s specification as filed 11/02/22 states:
The present invention relates to devices, systems, and methods for automated detecting and/or assessing damage to an object such as, for example, a vehicle, wherein possible fraudulent manipulations of digital image and/or fraudulent claims are automatically detected. Thus, it relates to an optical fraud detector and detection device for automated detection of fraud in digital imaginary-based automobile claim processing and automated damage recognition systems. In addition, it relates to devices, systems, and methods for detecting / analyzing / assessing damage to an object such as, for example, a vehicle providing estimates on repair / replacement cost well as, in addition to the evaluation on potential image manipulation and fraud. In particular, the present invention relates to a fully automated method for detecting and/or assessing damage to an object from image data provided by a user. Further, the present invention relates to a recognition apparatus and a recognition method based on image processing for automated damage identification for vehicle or property damages. Furthermore, the present invention also generally relates to image based damage recognition for processing damage claims by an insurance system.
For example, pg. 3, lines 23 - 25 of applicant’s specification as filed 11/02/22 states:
Thus, there is a need to extend prior art systems to allow assessing damage
to an object from any image data provided by a user and further allowing to
automatically detect possible fraudulent image manipulations or fraudulent claims.
See also, at least claim 1 as filed 05/14/26.
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to insurance and mitigating risk (e.g., detection of manipulations). Insurance and mitigating risk, in the instant scenario, pertains to agreements in the form of “contracts”, “legal obligations”, and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., capture, determining, process, trigger, generate).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” because representative/ independent claim 1 does not explicitly state “fraud” or that the examiner relies upon language from applicant’s specification for the abstract idea finding in error. The Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention has been afforded it’s “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”. See MPEP §2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. The interpretation of the claimed invention as relating to insurance and mitigating risk (e.g., detection of manipulations) is within that scope.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention cannot involve “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the steps or acts are performed by “circuitry” of a “automated optical detector”. The Examiner disagrees. Although the claimed invention is from the perspective of a machine (i.e., “automated optical detector”), the machine is functioning as proxy for human operator(s) that may perform similar functions. In other words, the interaction of the claimed “automated optical detector” is similar to interactions of human operator(s) such as an insurer/ insurance representative and insured/ user. See at least pg. 4, line 15+ - pg. 5, line 2; pg. 6, lines 9 - 25; pg. 10, lines 11 - 28 of applicant’s specification as filed 11/02/22.
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it (a) provides a technical solution to a technical problem; and (b) provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (e.g., “The claimed invention provides a clear technical structure of sequential technical features or parallel features that together enable the desired technical goal of automated detection and recognition of digital image manipulation.” See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 05/14/26. “Thus, the claimed invention provides a technological improvement and thereby results in a ‘practical application.’ ” See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/remarks as filed 10/08/25.). The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides (a) a technical solution to a technical problem; and (b)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.
Insurance and mitigating risk (e.g., detection of manipulations) is directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. The claimed invention invokes computers or other machinery (e.g., “circuitry” of an “automated optical detector”) merely as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., detection of manipulations) or uses a computer or other machinery (e.g., “circuitry” of an “automated optical detector”) in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., detection of manipulations).
Applicant’s alleged “solution”/ “improvement” are with respect to the business operations (i.e., “abstract idea”), not “the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field”. NOTE: Human operator(s) such as such as an insurer/ insurance representative can similarly perform tasks such as obtain digital images from other human operator(s) such as an insured/ user detect manipulations of the digital images. The speed and accuracy with which this may occur are merely side effects or benefits of automation.
With respect to applicant’s argument (i.e., “Further, the automation is a technical requirement and a technical object of the claimed invention because, if thousands of digital images have to be recognized for manipulation, there is no possibility to do it manually.”). Applicant’s arguments rely on a size and complexity of the “digital images” captured that is not required of the claimed invention. Applicant’s argument appears to be a variation of the arguments relied upon throughout the prosecution history with respect to the benefits of “automation” itself such speed (e.g., “fast”) and accuracy, not an actual technological improvement. See pg. 6, lines 9-25; pg. 10, 11 - 28 of applicant’s specification as filed 11/02/22.
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).
Many of the features applicant relies upon are “insignificant”. For example, they amount to “necessary data gathering and outputting” (e.g., “capture digital images, the digital images at least comprising digital images associated with one or more damaged objects of a motor vehicle,”).
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., “capture digital images, the digital images at least comprising digital images associated with one or more damaged objects of a motor vehicle,”); analyzing it (e.g., “the digital images being processed by determining a first set of attributes at least comprising damage location zones of the motor vehicle and an incident geographic location and an incident date and an incident time by processing user-provided text associated with the digital images by natural language processing,
determining a second set of attributes by digital image processing of the digital images using machine language (ML)-based convolutional neural network processing, the second set of attributes being at least indicative of at least one zone of the motor vehicle and a damage to the at least one zone, the at least one zone including at least a front center zone and/or a front left zone and/or a front right zone and/or a left zone and/or a right zone and/or a rear left zone and/or a rear right zone and/or a rear center zone and/or a wind-shield zone, and the damage including at least a dent and/or a glass shatter and/or a broken front lamp and/or a broken tail lamp and/or a scratch and/or a smash and/or a hailstone dent, and determining a third set of attributes by digital image processing of the digital images using the ML-based convolutional neural network processing, the third set of attributes being indicative of a roof of the motor vehicle,
process mobile sensor data to obtain floating car data from a driver driving the motor vehicle, the floating car data comprising time-stamped geo-localization and speed data obtained from mobiles of the motor vehicle, and determine a fourth set of attributes from the floating car data, the fourth set of attributes indicative of at least one of a passenger's route and/or trip travel time and/or estimate traffic state and/or global positioning system (GPS) data, process said digital images and the sets of attributes for existing image alteration by using an unusual pattern identification structure as a first detection, to detect an unusual damage pattern of the motor vehicle, which is associated with a damage to a motor vehicle that did not happen to the motor vehicle due to an accident or natural calamities, based on determining whether damages are to one or more zones on opposite sides of the motor vehicle and whether damage is to the zone representing the roof of the motor vehicle, wherein a rule- based identifier is set in response to the unusual damage pattern being detected, process, via an RGB recognition module, said digital images for optical detection using an RGB image input, RGB values of the RGB image input being used for convolutional neural network (CNN)-based detection including (i) CNN-based pre-existing damage detection, (ii) parallel CNN-based color matching, and (iii) double JPEG compression detection using custom CNN, and provide output of the CNN-based detection, trigger an ML-based identifier providing a seconddisplaying certain results of the collection and analysis 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).
(3)Applicant argues the claims 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)). Applicant argues the claimed invention is not “well-understood, routine or conventional”.
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 11/02/22 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, pg. 1, lines 10 - 25; pg. 11, line 5+ - col. 12, line 7. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Campbell, US Pub. No. 2020/0034958; Dong, US Pub. No. 2018/0240194; Howe, US Pub. No. 2017/0270650; Chen, US Pat. No. 10,740,891; and Xu, US Pat. No. 11,748,399 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “capture”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “process”, “trigger”, “generate”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Campbell, abstract, [0009] [0010] [0011] [0012] [0013] [0014] [0016] [0018] [0019] [0021] [0023] [0024] [0031] [0032] [0040] [0043] [0044] [0046] [00048] [0049] [0050] [0053] [0054] [0056] [0058] [0060] [0061] [0063] [0064] [0065] [0066] [0069]. Dong, [0038] [0039]. Howe, [0026] [0045] [0050] [0070]. Chen, col. 22, line 46+ - col. 23, line 15; col. 40, lines 7 - 22; col. 41, line 64+ - col. 42, line 9. Xu, col. 7, lines 30 - 47; col. 8, lines 24 - 46. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “capture”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “process”, “trigger”, “generate”, 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 invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Furthermore, with respect to applicant’s arguments, applicant is conflating two different standards (i.e., Prior art eligibility consideration with respect to 102 or 103; and “well-understood, routine and conventional” consideration with respect to 101.
(4) Applicant argues dependent claims.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Like independent claim 1, dependent claims 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 are similarly directed to the abstract idea of insurance and mitigating risk (e.g., detection of manipulations). In dependent claims 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 the abstract idea is described with more specificity, but this is not sufficient to overcome 101. Like independent claim 1, dependent 2, 12 - 14, 16 and 26 encompasses “economic principles or practices”; “commercial or legal interactions” such as “contracts”, “legal obligations”, and “business relations”; and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Similar to independent claim 1, the steps or acts are directed to the types of tasks (e.g., (a) data receipt/ transmission; and (b) data processing) considered “well-understood, routine, and conventional.” Furthermore, dependent claim 12 introduces “at least two different visual modeling data processing structures”. The “at least two different visual modeling data processing structures” merely being used as a tool (i.e., “by independently applying at least two different visual modeling data processing structures”). Furthermore, dependent claim 26 introduces “on-board unit sensors of the motor vehicle”, but it is tangential to the claimed invention since the claimed invention is not from the perspective of the “motor vehicle” and merely serves as source of data used.
112
Withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments and/ or amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relate to fraud detection, digital images, machine learning and/ or automobile claims.
US 11379886 B1
US 11373249 B1
US 20220129860 A1
US 20210342997 A1
US 10803301 B1
AU 2017209231 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights