DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on January 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 17-19 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11,14-16 and 20 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11,14-16 and 20 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.
In sum, claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11,14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1–2, 4, and 7), a machine (claims 8–9, 11, and 14), and a manufacture (claims 15–16 and 20); where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose by:
receiving, from a first transport of a plurality of transports, a first video file of an event causing potential damage to the first transport, the first video file recorded by a sensor of the first transport and including a first timestamp;
in response to receiving the first video file, and the first transport being within a predefined range of a different transport of a plurality of transports, receiving, from the different transport, a different video file of the event recorded by a,…, of the second transport and including a second timestamp within a preset time interval of the first timestamp;
identifying portions in the video file and the different video file that correlate to the event based on the first timestamp and the second timestamp;
combining the portions that are correlated to generate a combined video segment of the event;
storing the combined video segment and a damage assessment associated with the extent of the actual damage in a,…, accessible to the plurality of transports; and
sharing the combined video segment and the damage assessment with another computing....
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: “server,” “sensor,” “database,” and “network,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0007] of the specification). Independent claims 8 and 15 are nearly identical to independent claim 1 and, therefore, the same analysis applies to independent claims 8 and 15. Independent claims 8 and 15 include additional elements such a “processor” and “non-transitory computer readable medium,” respectively, and these additional elements are being used to implement (“apply it”) the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose.
The dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 all recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe the receiving of vehicle accident data through accessing the video files of the various transports based on specific timeframes in order to then analyze the vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose. Dependent claims 4 and 11 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe receiving vehicle accident data through the various video files of the transports that show potential damage from different angles in order to analyze the vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose. Dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe storing an identifier of the accident report on a generic database. This is furthering the abstract idea of claim 1 of receiving and analyzing the vehicle data for an insurance purpose by merely storing the specific vehicle damage assessment on a database. This is furthering the abstract idea of claim 1 of receiving and analyzing the vehicle data for an insurance purpose by merely storing the specific vehicle damage assessment on a ledger of the blockchain.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on January 21, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “These are specific data flows and operations within a particular distributed sensing and networking environment and do not neatly fit into any of the three listed abstract idea groups. The Examiner's interpretation removes the recited technical context and instead introduces an unclaimed "insurance purpose" that is not present in claim 1.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). Examiner disagrees. The recited abstract idea here falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose). Merely requiring a computer and being “new” in the art of vehicle management does not take this invention outside of this category of patent ineligible subject matter. mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. The term “damage” and “determining that the potential damage is actual damage…” which is what is generated is clearly directed to insurance which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity, and includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial or legal interactions.
The Applicant next argues that Even if the Examiner argues that some part of "receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data" is an abstract idea, claim 1, as currently written, integrates that idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). Examiner disagrees. Here, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Generic elements are being used to gather vehicle data (at various moments) in this invention and then send that data to include in a generated damage assessment. Merely synchronizing captured videos to then confirm damage to a certain transport does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant finally argues Under Step 2B, even if the Examiner considers claim 1 as reciting a judicial exception, the ordered combination of additional elements provides an ‘inventive concept’ that is substantially more than the alleged abstract idea.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). However, the additional elements here, such as: “server,” “sensor,” “database,” and “network,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0007] of the specification). There is no unique and non-generic combination of functions here. These are all functions are that generic even when combined together in this fashion as the claims put forth. Applicant does not point to how there is a technological improvement occurring through the claims that make up this invention. Mere conclusory statements such as this without any supporting evidence does not indicate that this invention is a technological improvement. Therefore, the claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (See, MPEP §707.05). The examiner considers the following reference(s) pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Floyd (U.S. Pat. No. 10,593,109) teaches a system for identifying property damage using a drone fleet to collect damage information autonomously or semi-autonomously; and
Mirza et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,168,882) teaches a method and apparatus for implementing a vehicle exchange platform for identifying vehicle sensor data and providing methods for storage and exchange of the sensor data.
The current invention differs from Floyd as multiple vehicles are being use to collect damage data and then if the extent of damage is above a predetermine threshold, an accident report is automatically generated. The current invention differs from Mirza as it does not include the automatic generation of data based on a predetermined threshold of damage being met which is part of this invention.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner
Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696