Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/079,276

VIRTUAL HOME INSPECTION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 12, 2022
Examiner
HILMANTEL, ADAM J
Art Unit
3691
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Esurance Insurance Services Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
57 granted / 140 resolved
-11.3% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
175
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
§103
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§102
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 140 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status of Claims This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 12 December 2025. Claim(s) 1-23 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 24, 26-27, 29, 31, 33-34, 36, 38, 40-41 and 43 is/are amended. Claim(s) 24-43 is/are currently pending and have been examined. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 December 2025 has been entered. Terminal Disclaimer The terminal disclaimer filed on 02 May 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,526,946 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Interpretation Examiner notes that a size and/or condition of an insurable area are inherently associated with and/or indicate a cost of the insurable area when taken in a context of insurance. As such, the phrase “the user-provided information being associated with a cost of the insurable area” and “user-provided value information indicating a cost of the insurable area” recited in the independent claims is inherently fulfilled by the user-provided value information including a size and/or condition of the insurable area as is already claimed in the same limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 24, 26-31, 33-38 and 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trandal et al. (US 7,962,485 B1 hereinafter Trandal) in view of Foster (US 9,014,726 B1 hereinafter Foster) further in view of Limas et al. (US 9,792,654 B1 hereinafter Limas). Claim 24 A method for a virtual inspection of an insurable area, the method comprising associating a user of a user mobile device with a user account, wherein the user account is associated with an insurable area; (Trandal discloses signing up with account and mobile device. See at least Figs. 4 and 5 and column 16, lines 49-62. Trandal discloses record for an insured home. See at least column 7, lines 41-50. Trandal discloses system including collection of locations. See at least column 6, lines 8-16.) sending, from the user account to a remote server, a request to perform the virtual inspection of the insurable area and a description of the insurable area, the description including a location of the insurable area and user-provided value information including a size and/or a condition of the insurable area, the user-provided value information being associated with a cost of the insurable area; (Trandal discloses user requesting account for inspection. See at least column 16, lines 49-67. Trandal discloses user inputting size information and location information of rooms. See at least column 12, lines 1-53.) initiating, via a wireless connection between a computing device associated with a live agent and the user mobile device, a control of the user mobile device for capturing respective images to validate the description of the insurable area; (Trandal discloses instructions for the user. See at least column 8, line 45 – column 9, line 12. Trandal discloses capturing images in response to instructions. See at least column 5, lines 23-58. Trandal discloses using a combination of user selected locations (i.e. user-provided location information) together with downloaded GPS coordinates (i.e. device-provided location information) to create a rendition of a user’s residence including various rooms and room sizes (i.e. validating the user-provided information). See at least column 12, lines 1-53. Trandal discloses virtual connection with a live operator over wireless connection. See at least column 4, line 64 – column 5, line 13 and column 11, lines 27-41. Although Trandal does disclose capturing images in response to instructions, they might not explicitly disclose initiating control of the user mobile device with a live agent and the live agent capturing images. Limas teaches a live agent remote controlling a user’s video feed, capturing images, and annotating data to said images. See at least column 6, line 54 – column 7, line 15, column 8, lines 28-45, and column 10, line 58 – column 11, line 10. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to initiate control of the user’s mobile device to enable a live agent to control a user’s camera as taught by Limas in the System of Trandal because Limas additionally teaches the motivation that it lets an agent obtain damage information quickly and efficiently, without the need for a personal visit from an insurance company adjuster to the insured property. See at least column 10, line 58 – column 11, line 10. Also, initiating control of the user’s mobile device to enable a live agent to control a user’s camera as taught by Limas in the System of Trandal is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.) capturing, by the live agent and using the user mobile device, the respective images; (Trandal discloses capturing images in response to instructions. See at least column 5, lines 23-58. Examiner incorporates the combination shown above with Limas herein to teach the live agent capturing the images.) analyzing, by the remote server, the respective images to determine respective locations of the user mobile device when capturing the respective images and encoding location information with the respective images; and (Trandal discloses using a combination of user selected locations (i.e. user-provided location information) together with downloaded GPS coordinates (i.e. device-provided location information) to create a rendition of a user’s residence including various rooms and room sizes (i.e. validating the user-provided information). See at least column 12, lines 1-53. Although Trandal does disclose validating location information using GPS coordinates and user data, they might not explicitly disclose analyzing the taken images to determine locations and perform said validation. Foster teaches using visual feature matching of geotagged photographs of a location to confirm said geotags. See at least column 6, lines 42-51. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to validate the photograph locations of Trandal using feature matching as taught by Foster because Foster additionally teaches the motivation that such feature matching can be used to confirm otherwise ambiguous geotagged photographs. See at least column 6, lines 42-51.) validating, by the remote server, the respective images by comparing the respective locations of the user mobile device to the location of the insurable area, wherein the validating includes determining whether the respective locations of the user mobile device correspond to the location of the insurable area; and (Trandal discloses using a combination of user selected locations (i.e. user-provided location information) together with downloaded GPS coordinates (i.e. device-provided location information) to create a rendition of a user’s residence including various rooms and room sizes (i.e. validating the user-provided information). See at least column 12, lines 1-53. Examiner further incorporates the above combination with Foster herein using the same rationale for usage of image analysis for geotag validation.) uploading, to the remote server and based on the validated respective images, the respective images together with the encoded location information. (Trandal discloses uploading images and user entered data. See at least column 5, lines 23-58.) Claim 26 The method of claim 24, wherein the request to perform the virtual inspection includes a request to establish a virtual connection with a live agent via the wireless connection. (Trandal discloses virtual connection with a live operator over wireless connection. See at least column 4, line 64 – column 5, line 13 and column 11, lines 27-41.) Claim 27 The method of claim 26, further comprising providing a set of instructions to the user account using the live agent and the live agent is simulated by a computer. (Trandal discloses user initiating an interactive voice response session (i.e. simulated agent providing instructions) using automatic speech recognition for data entry. See at least column 15, lines 9-28.) Claim 28 The method of claim 24, wherein the location information includes one or more geotags that indicate locations where one or more of the respective images were captured and the respective images include one or more videos or still images. (Trandal discloses GPS coordinates (i.e. geotags) that indicate location of inventory. See at least column 17, lines 36-45. Trandal discloses images including scanned images, camera images, or other optical image capture. See at least column 4, lines 3-9.) Claim 29 The method 24, wherein the capturing of the respective images comprises capturing one or more portions of the insurable area. (The combination with Limas above shows the capturing including capturing one or more portions of the insurable area which Examiner incorporates herein.) Claim 30 The method of claim 24, wherein the user-provided value information is generated from a set of user inputs describing the insurable area. (Trandal at Fig. 19.) Claim 31 A system, comprising: at least one data processor; (Trandal discloses a processor. See at least column 4, lines 18-27.) a user mobile device, wherein the user mobile device is associated with a user and a user account, and the user account is associated with an insurable area; (Trandal discloses signing up with account and mobile device. See at least Figs. 4 and 5 and column 16, lines 49-62.) a remote server; and (Trandal discloses a remote server. See at least column 4, line 64 – column 5, line 12.) at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations comprising: (Trandal discloses memory storing instructions. See at least column 5, lines 14-22.) … The remainder of Claim 31 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 24 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 33 Claim 33 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 26 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 34 Claim 34 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 27 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 35 Claim 35 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 28 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 36 Claim 36 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 29 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 37 Claim 37 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 30 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 38 A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer- executable instructions stored thereon for execution by a processor to perform a method for virtual inspection, the method including: (Trandal discloses non-transitory memory storing instructions executable by computer terminals. See at least column 5, lines 14-22.) … The remainder of Claim 37 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 30 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 40 Claim 40 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 26 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 41 Claim 41 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 27 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 42 Claim 42 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 28 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 43 Claim 43 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 29 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim(s) 25, 32 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trandal et al. (US 7,962,485 B1 hereinafter Trandal) in view of Foster (US 9,014,726 B1 hereinafter Foster) further in view of Limas et al. (US 9,792,654 B1 hereinafter Limas) further in view of Stender et al. (US 2010/0174564 A1 hereinafter Stender). Claim 25 The method of claim 24, further comprising: receiving an insurance rate based on the respective images. (Although Trandal does disclose insuring the items captured, they might not explicitly disclose receiving an insurance rate based on the respective images. Stender teaches using a mobile device to provide insurance services including providing quotes for insuring a property by a mobile device sending photos of the property (see enable an insured to access services and information spanning the entire insurance relationship including: policy quotes; policy formation; asset, policy and insurance information; policy coverage and limit information; payment, billing and accounting information; and claim status information. Para 16, and para 22 “digital photographs, digital video recordings, and GPS information’) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the inventory management system of Trandal the ability to provide an insurance quote based on a received set of image items as taught by Stender since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. A person of ordinary skill would have understood prior art teachings, or what a person of ordinary skill would have known or could have done. Connecting insurers to potential insured by mobile device and images significantly reduces the amount of resources expended by the insureds and insurers to interact with one another see Stender at paragraph 5; Trandal for facilitating the insurance claims process and reducing the cost to the insurance industry of claims management see column 1, lines 57 to 61 “reducing the cost to the insurance industry”). Claim 32 Claim 32 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 25 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Claim 39 Claim 39 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 25 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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. /ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 22, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 12, 2024
Interview Requested
Mar 26, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 26, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 27, 2024
Response Filed
May 31, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 07, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 23, 2025
Interview Requested
Apr 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 02, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12456102
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING FAST PAYOUTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Patent 12361420
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVISIONING A PAYMENT INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 15, 2025
Patent 12346884
MOBILE CHECK DEPOSIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 01, 2025
Patent 12327251
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR IMPLEMENTING USER CUSTOMIZABLE RISK MANAGEMENT TOOLS WITH STATISTICAL MODELING AND RECOMMENDATION ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 10, 2025
Patent 12293365
Authentication Based on Biometric Identification Parameter of an Individual for Payment Transaction
2y 5m to grant Granted May 06, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (+25.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 140 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month