DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 10/2/25, wherein:
Claims 1-14 and 15-21 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. provisional patent application Serial Number 63/411,399, filed September 29, 2022, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/424,019, filed November 9, 2022 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
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- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 12 and 16 recite a method and a system, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category. Claim 1 is used as the exemplary claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity:
with one or more processors of a virtual environment server, generating and providing a virtual environment;
receiving, via one or more processors of a processing server, an indication of a request, wherein the indication of the request: (i) includes an indication of the physical item to be replaced, and (ii) arises from the virtual environment provided by the one or more processors of the virtual environment server;
determining, via the one or more processors of the processing server, a set of potential replacement items for the physical item to be replaced;
retrieving, via the one or more processors of the processing server, from a vender database, virtual data of the set of potential replacement items;
building, via the one or more processors of the processing server, based upon the virtual data retrieved from the vender database, virtual item models of items of the set of potential replacement items in a format operable to import virtual versions of the items of the set of potential replacement items into the virtual environment; and
presenting, via the one or more processors of the virtual environment server, in the virtual environment, and based upon the retrieved virtual data of the set of potential replacement items, the set of potential replacement items to a user.
These limitations constitute receiving and processing insurance claim requests, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite standard processes found in standard practice in insurance claim and adjuster practice. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of one or more processors of a processing server, one or more processors of a virtual environment server, and a vendor database (claims 1 and 12); and a user device, a virtual environment server, and a vendor database (claim 16), which are considered computer components. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the presenting limitation (claim 1) and the sending limitation (claims 12 and 16) may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations reciting “with one or more processors of a virtual environment server, generating and providing a virtual environment,” and “building, via the one or more processors of the processing server, based upon the virtual data retrieved from the vender database, virtual item models of items of the set of potential replacement items in a format operable to import virtual versions of the items of the set of potential replacement items into the virtual environment” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (“with one or more processors of a virtual environment server, generating and providing a virtual environment,” and “building, via the one or more processors of the processing server, based upon the virtual data retrieved from the vender database, virtual item models of items of the set of potential replacement items in a format operable to import virtual versions of the items of the set of potential replacement items into the virtual environment”). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the presenting and sending limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec and identifying presenting offers as WURC, as recognized by OIP Techs). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13, 14, and 17-21 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 12, and 16 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 12, and 16; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Examiner notes that claims 9 and 10 contain language directed to “machine learning algorithm” and “trained on historical information”, which amounts to, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system requires specific mathematical calculations (training the algorithm using stored item/product information). The Specification states, in pertinent part, that the system “may determine the set of potential replacement items by using a trained machine learning algorithm, as will be described further below. In some examples, the machine learning algorithm may be trained by the machine learning training application” (See at least Specification ¶ 64) and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. In other words, these limitations are part of the abstract idea. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maestas (US 11055531), in view of Vandrilla (US 20110196706).
Referring to claim 1:
Maestas discloses computer-implemented method performed in a distributed computing environment and a computer system for assisting with replacement of a physical item (see at least Maestas: Abstract), comprising:
with one or more processors of a virtual environment server, generating and providing a virtual environment: receiving, via one or more processors of a processing server, an indication of a request, wherein the indication of the request: (i) includes an indication of a physical item to be replaced, and (ii) arises from the virtual environment provided by the one or more processors of the virtual environment server (see at least Maestas: Col. 11 Line 44-52 “FIG. 11 is a schematic view of a process for automatically conducting repairs after a loss causing incident. It may be appreciated that in some embodiments, all of the following steps could be performed by a single entity, such as an insurance company that may have ownership of one or more companies for making repairs.”; see at least Maestas: Fig. 3: disclosing the virtual environment; see at least Maestas: Col. 4 Line 1-35, Col. 5: system receiving loss causing incident event information within a virtual environment; see at least Maestas: Col. 10 Line 5-14: use of augmented reality; see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 47-55 “centralized manager 302 comprises one or more servers 310 that may be in communication with one or more databases 312. Each server may be a single computer, the partial computing resources of a single computer, a plurality of computers communicating with one another, or a network of remote servers”);
determining, via the one or more processors of the processing server, a set of potential replacement items for the physical item to be replaced (see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 4-45, and Col. 12 Line 1-19);
retrieving, via the one or more processors of the processing server, from a vender database, virtual data of the set of potential replacement items (see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 4-20, and Col. 12 Line 1-19; see also Col. 7 Line 24-30: discussing automated approach to replacing items; see also Col. 12: discussing the pulling from information from vendor databases; see also Col. 6 Line 29-50); and
presenting, via the one or more processors of the virtual environment server, in the virtual environment, and based upon the retrieved virtual data of the set of potential replacement items, the set of potential replacement items to a user (see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 4-20, and Col. 12 Line 1-19).
Maestas discloses a system for using augmented reality of repairing damage or replacing physical objects (abstract). Maestas does not disclose building, via the one or more processors of the processing server, based upon the virtual data retrieved from the vender database, virtual item models of items of the set of potential replacement items in a format operable to import virtual versions of the items of the set of potential replacement items into the virtual environment.
However, Vandrilla discloses a similar system for an on-site evaluation of removable goods, condition, and value and for providing replacement removable goods (abstract). Vandrilla discloses building, via the one or more processors of the processing server, based upon the virtual data retrieved from the vender database, virtual item models of items of the set of potential replacement items in a format operable to import virtual versions of the items of the set of potential replacement items into the virtual environment {Vandrilla [0064]-[0070]; Further, the insurer 22 may, in step 108 or 132, authorize and/or instruct on the type or quality of replacement furniture. Moreover, in the step 132, the evaluation logic may include a replacement database that stores identification of varieties of furniture and matches the characteristic options with characteristics of furniture to automatically select a replacement article of furniture [0064] and the customer 26 and/or insurer 22 may be provided with pictorial or digital illustrations representatives of at least a portion of each authorized available replacement articles of furniture. For example, the furniture evaluator 18 could provide the customer 26 and/or insurer 22, using a computer having a monitor, with virtual representations of at least a portion of at least one authorized available replacement articles of furniture, and/or further with a virtual illustration of the furniture site with at least one authorized available replacement articles of furniture delivered, such as for example by altering a digital image of the furniture site with graphics editing or enhancement software [0070]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Maestas to incorporate building virtual item models as taught by Vandrilla because this would provide a manner for providing an illustration of the furniture site with the replacement articles delivered (Vandrilla [0070]), thus aiding the user by allowing them to visualize how the replacement articles will look in their space.
Referring to claim 2:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein the physical item to be replaced comprises a personal article, or a vehicle (see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 4-20, and Col. 12 Line 1-19; see also Maestas: Col. 8 Line 1-20 and Col. 10 Line 27-61).
Referring to claim 3:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein: the physical item comprises a furniture item, and determining the set of potential replacement items comprises: determining, via the one or more processors of the processing server, the set of potential replacement items based upon a type of the furniture item, a size of the furniture item, and/or an optional feature of the furniture item (see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 4-20, and Col. 12 Line 1-19; see also Maestas: Col. 8 Line 1-20 and Col. 10 Line 27-61).
Referring to claim 4:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein: the physical item comprises an electronic item, and determining the set of potential replacement items comprises: determining, via the one or more processors of the processing server, the set of potential replacement items based upon a type of the electronic item, a size of the electronic item, and/or a color of the electronic item (see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 4-20, and Col. 12 Line 1-19; see also Maestas: Col. 8 Line 1-20 and Col. 10 Line 27-61).
Referring to claim 5:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein: the physical item comprises a vehicle, and determining the set of potential replacement items comprises: determining, via the one or more processors of the processing server, the set of potential replacement items based upon a type of the vehicle, a size of the vehicle, a color of the vehicle, a year of the vehicle, a make of the vehicle, a model of the vehicle, and/or features of the vehicle (see at least Maestas: Col. 10 Line 41-62).
Referring to claim 7:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein presenting the set of potential replacement items comprises: calculating, via the one or more processors, a price of items included in the set of potential replacement items based upon: (i) an insurance policy corresponding to the insurance claim, (ii) a current value of the physical item to be replaced, and/or (iii) current prices of the items of the set of potential replacement items; and presenting, via the one or more processors of the processing server, the set of potential replacement items the corresponding calculated prices to the user (see at least Maestas: Col 4 Line 45-61, Col. 5 Line 4-27, Col. 6 Line 51-60, Col. 7 Line 14-22, Col. 8 Line 12-21, Col. 11 Line 1-44, and Col. 12 Line 1-40).
Referring to claim 8:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses further comprising: analyzing, via the one or more processors, an insurance policy corresponding to the insurance claim to identify a replacement budget; and generating, via the one or more processors of the processing server, the set of potential replacement items such that a total replacement cost for the set of potential replacement items is within the replacement budget (see at least Maestas: Col. 11 Line 11-23).
Referring to claim 9:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein the determining the set of potential replacement items comprises: routing, via the one or more processors of the processing server, the indication of the physical item to be replaced to a machine learning algorithm that is: (i) trained using historical information of physical items, and historical information of insurance customers, and (ii) configured to output suggested replacement items to include in the set of potential replacement items (see at least Maestas: Col. 3 Line 30-36, Col. 4 Line 4-10 and 46-54).
Referring to claim 10:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein the determining the set of potential replacement items comprises: determining, via the one or more processors of the processing server, a type of the physical item to be replaced by analyzing imagery data corresponding to the physical item to be replaced (see at least Maestas: Col. 10 Line 5-27, Col. 7-8: discussing using images captured to identify state and conditions of property); and routing, via the one or more processors of the processing server, the determined type to a machine learning algorithm that is: (i) trained using historical information of physical items, and historical information of insurance customers, and (ii) configured to output to output suggested replacement items to determine the set of potential replacement items (see at least Maestas: Col. 3 Line 30-36, Col. 4 Line 4-10 and 46-54).
Referring to claim 11:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein determining the set of potential replacement items comprises: receiving, via the one or more processors and from a vender server, an inventory list that includes items matching an item type associated with the physical item to be replaced; and potential replacement items populating, via the one or more processors, the set of potential replacement items the matching items included in the inventory list (see at least Maestas: Col. 5, Col 7 Line 14-22, Col. 8 Line 1-20, Col. 10 Line 27-40, and Col. 11-12: discussing vendor specific aspects of the invention).
Referring to claims 12 & 16:
Claims 12 & 16 are rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Maestas discloses sending, via the one or more processors of the processing server, to the one or more processors of the virtual environment server: (i) an instruction to present the set of potential replacement items in the virtual environment (see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 4-20, and Col. 12 Line 1-19).
Maestas discloses a system for using augmented reality of repairing damage or replacing physical objects (abstract). Maestas does not disclose (ii) the virtual item models.
However, Vandrilla discloses a similar system for an on-site evaluation of removable goods, condition, and value and for providing replacement removable goods (abstract). Vandrilla discloses (ii) the virtual item models {Vandrilla [0064]-[0070]; the customer 26 and/or insurer 22 may be provided with pictorial or digital illustrations representatives of at least a portion of each authorized available replacement articles of furniture. For example, the furniture evaluator 18 could provide the customer 26 and/or insurer 22, using a computer having a monitor, with virtual representations of at least a portion of at least one authorized available replacement articles of furniture, and/or further with a virtual illustration of the furniture site with at least one authorized available replacement articles of furniture delivered, such as for example by altering a digital image of the furniture site with graphics editing or enhancement software [0070]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Maestas to incorporate virtual item models as taught by Vandrilla because this would provide a manner for providing an illustration of the furniture site with the replacement articles delivered (Vandrilla [0070]), thus aiding the user by allowing them to visualize how the replacement articles will look in their space.+
Referring to claim 13:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses further comprising: sending, via the one or more processors of the processing server and to a user device, a list including items of the set of potential replacement items; and receiving, via the one or more processors of the processing server and from the user device, a selection of items from the list; (see at least Maestas: Col 4 Line 45-61, Col. 5 Line 4-27, Col. 6 Line 51-60, Col. 7 Line 14-22, Col. 8 Line 12-21, Col. 11 Line 1-44, and Col. 12 Line 1-40); and
wherein the building the virtual item models comprises building virtual item models of items selected from the list {Vandrilla [0064]-[0070]; Further, the insurer 22 may, in step 108 or 132, authorize and/or instruct on the type or quality of replacement furniture. Moreover, in the step 132, the evaluation logic may include a replacement database that stores identification of varieties of furniture and matches the characteristic options with characteristics of furniture to automatically select a replacement article of furniture [0064] and the customer 26 and/or insurer 22 may be provided with pictorial or digital illustrations representatives of at least a portion of each authorized available replacement articles of furniture. For example, the furniture evaluator 18 could provide the customer 26 and/or insurer 22, using a computer having a monitor, with virtual representations of at least a portion of at least one authorized available replacement articles of furniture, and/or further with a virtual illustration of the furniture site with at least one authorized available replacement articles of furniture delivered, such as for example by altering a digital image of the furniture site with graphics editing or enhancement software [0070]}.
Referring to claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 2.
Referring to claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 3.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 4.
Referring to claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 5.
Referring to claim 21:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein: the virtual data comprises imagery data (see at least Maestas: Col. 6 Line 36-50: generating models of potential replacement items (undamaged); see also Maestas: Col. 11 Line 21-31
see at least Gross: ¶ 45-50); and
the building includes building the virtual item models based upon the imagery data {Vandrilla [0064]-[0070]; Moreover, in the step 132, the evaluation logic may include a replacement database that stores identification of varieties of furniture and matches the characteristic options with characteristics of furniture to automatically select a replacement article of furniture [0064] and the customer 26 and/or insurer 22 may be provided with pictorial or digital illustrations representatives of at least a portion of each authorized available replacement articles of furniture. For example, the furniture evaluator 18 could provide the customer 26 and/or insurer 22, using a computer having a monitor, with virtual representations of at least a portion of at least one authorized available replacement articles of furniture, and/or further with a virtual illustration of the furniture site with at least one authorized available replacement articles of furniture delivered, such as for example by altering a digital image of the furniture site with graphics editing or enhancement software [0070]}.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maestas (US 11055531), in view of Vandrilla (US 20110196706), and further in view of Kawas et al. (US 20230316389).
Referring to claim 6:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein: the physical item comprises a vehicle (see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 4-20, and Col. 12 Line 1-19; see also Maestas: Col. 8 Line 1-20 and Col. 10 Line 27-61).
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, fails to disclose the method further comprises: receiving, via the one or more processors and from a user device associated with the user, an indication that the user would like to virtually test drive a replacement vehicle included in the set of potential replacement items; and sending, via the one or more processors of the processing server, a request to the one or more processors of the virtual environment server to provide a virtual item corresponding to the replacement vehicle within the virtual environment.
However, Kawas, which talks about presented potential replacement vehicles to a user through a virtual environment, teaches it is known to determine a virtual vehicles, present the virtual vehicle along with a VR test drive option, receiving a selection of the VR test drive option from the user, and completing the VR test drive using the system (see at least Kawas: ¶ 81 “enabling interoperation with AR/VR hardware. In some embodiments, a VR test drive may be generated using the relevant vehicle on a pre-set “test drive route”.”; see also Kawas: ¶ 85, 118, and 137).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of providing VR test driving for presented vehicle products (as disclosed by Kawas and Vandrilla) to the known method and system for managing insurance claims associated to vehicles where replacement vehicles are presented to the user (as disclosed by Maestas) to provide improved visualizations of goods and services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of providing VR test driving for presented vehicle products because it would provide improved visualizations of goods and services (see Kawas ¶ 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of providing VR test driving for presented vehicle products (as disclosed by Kawas) to the known method and system for managing insurance claims associated to vehicles where replacement vehicles are presented to the user (as disclosed by Maestas) to provide improved visualizations of goods and services, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of providing VR test driving for presented vehicle products to the known method and system for managing insurance claims associated to vehicles where replacement vehicles are presented to the user to provide improved visualizations of goods and services). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Referring to claim 14:
Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, discloses wherein: the physical item comprises a vehicle (see at least Maestas: Col. 5 Line 4-20, and Col. 12 Line 1-19; see also Maestas: Col. 8 Line 1-20 and Col. 10 Line 27-61); Maestas, as modified by Vandrilla, fails to disclose sending, via the one or more processors and to a user device associated with a user: (i) a list including vehicles of the set of potential replacement items, and (ii) a question asking if the user would like to virtually test drive a vehicle; and receiving, via the one or more processors and from the user device, a selection of a vehicle from the list along with an indication that the user would like to virtually test drive the vehicle; and wherein the building the virtual item models comprises building a virtual model of the vehicle selected from the list.
However, Kawas, which talks about presented potential replacement vehicles to a user through a virtual environment, teaches it is known to determine a virtual vehicles, present the virtual vehicle along with a VR test drive option, receiving a selection of the VR test drive option from the user, and completing the VR test drive using the system (see at least Kawas: ¶ 81 “enabling interoperation with AR/VR hardware. In some embodiments, a VR test drive may be generated using the relevant vehicle on a pre-set “test drive route”.”; see also Kawas: ¶ 85, 118, and 137).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of providing VR test driving for presented vehicle products (as disclosed by Kawas) to the known method and system for managing insurance claims associated to vehicles where replacement vehicles are presented to the user (as disclosed by Maestas) to provide improved visualizations of goods and services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of providing VR test driving for presented vehicle products because it would provide improved visualizations of goods and services (see Kawas ¶ 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of providing VR test driving for presented vehicle products (as disclosed by Kawas) to the known method and system for managing insurance claims associated to vehicles where replacement vehicles are presented to the user (as disclosed by Maestas) to provide improved visualizations of goods and services, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of providing VR test driving for presented vehicle products to the known method and system for managing insurance claims associated to vehicles where replacement vehicles are presented to the user to provide improved visualizations of goods and services). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101 Rejections
Applicant argues that claim 1 “improves the technical functioning in the distributed computing environment” for several reasons, the first of which is that claim 1 allegedly improves load balancing. Remarks 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims provide a technical improvement in load balancing. There is no support for this improvement in the claims or the Specification. To provide such a technical improvement, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. At most, the alleged improvement is set forth in a conclusory manner. Further, there is no
discussion in the specification that identifies the alleged technical problem of load balancing and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
Similarly, Applicant argues that the system’s partitioning of roles helps minimize the exposure of insurance data, which provides a technical improvement. Remarks 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. At most, the alleged improvement is set forth in a conclusory manner. Further, there is no discussion in the specification that identifies the alleged technical problem of exposure of insurance data and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
Applicant further argues that the feature of generating virtual item models in an import-ready format addresses a concrete computing problem. Remarks 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. At most, the alleged improvement is set forth in a conclusory manner. Further, there is no discussion in the specification that identifies the alleged technical problem of importing objects into virtual worlds and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
Applicant then argues that the combination of the three alleged technical advantages demonstrates patent matter eligibility. Remarks 11. However, it is not the combination of technical advantages which must be considered, but the combination of the additional elements of the claim, which must be considered as a whole. Further, such a combination must integrate the exception into a practical application. Applicant has not considered how the additional elements of the claim integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Applicant then argues that claim 21 “further specifies the technical nature of the claimed invention by requiring that the virtual item models are constructed from imagery data retrieved from the vendor database.” Remarks 11. However, it is unclear how this provides a technical improvement. Therefore, Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
35 USC 103 Rejection
Applicant argues that Gross does not disclose the limitation regarding building virtual item models. In the interest of expediting prosecution, Examiner has provided new art which discloses this limitation.
Applicant also argues that amended claim 1 “establishes a distributed computing architecture” not taught by the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is disclosed by Maestas at Col. 5 Line 47-55 “centralized manager 302 comprises one or more servers 310 that may be in communication with one or more databases 312. Each server may be a single computer, the partial computing resources of a single computer, a plurality of computers communicating with one another, or a network of remote servers.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626