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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 12/23/25 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-21, are pending.
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 1-4, 6-12, 14-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method and a computer device; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of assisting a user in the repair of an item in the context of an insurance claim for an item to be repaired, and presenting repair options for the item to be repaired. The claims are considered to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activities.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 9 and 17, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving, an indication of an insurance claim, wherein the indication of the insurance claim: (i) includes an indication of a physical item to be repaired, (ii) includes imagery data of the physical item to be repaired, and (iii) arises from the environment;
determining a set of potential repair options for the physical item to be repaired;
building model of the physical item to be repaired based upon the imagery data of the physical item to be repaired by analyzing the imagery data to determine dimensions of damage to the physical items to be repaired; and
presenting: (i) a representation of the physical item to be repaired based upon the model of the physical item to be repaired, (ii) a representation of a repaired version of the physical item to be repaired based upon the model of the physical item to be repaired, and (iii) the set of potential repair options to a user
The above limitations are reciting a process by which repair options are given to a user to repair a device in the context of an insurance claim. The processing and managing of an insurance claim to repair (or replace) a product is a fundamental economic practice that is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities. An insurance policy is a contract (a legal agreement) and the category of certain methods of organizing human activities includes legal obligations, such as concepts related to insurance policies and insurance claims. Before computers, insurance claim processing and managing the item repairs was performed by people, using pen and paper. The claimed process by which repair options are given to a user to repair a device in the context of an insurance claim is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea for the above reasons.
The additional elements for claims 1, 9, are:
with one or more processors of a virtual environment server, generating and providing a virtual environment;
claiming that the steps/functions that are defining the abstract idea are performed1 “via one or more processors of the processing server”
claiming that the environment is a “virtual” environment that the insurance claim arises from
For claim 17, the additional elements are:
one or more processors of a virtual environment server configured to generate and provide a virtual environment
one or more processors of a processing server
one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors of the processing server,
the memory contains computer executable instructions causing the processing server to perform the steps that define the abstract idea
claiming that the environment is a “virtual environment” that the insurance claim arises from
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea in a virtual environment, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed virtual environment server is claiming a computer that is configured to generate a virtual environment. This is a link to using a computer to provide a virtual environment, which is itself not defined in the claim and can be any “virtual” environment, such as a simply overlay on a video. The virtual server is a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. The steps/functions that defines the abstract idea are claimed as being performed by the processing server. The processing server is performing the functions recited in the claim, that includes the presentation of the representation, the virtual representation, and the set of potential repair options to the user. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea where the processing server is simply being linked to the execution of the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network, all generically recited. The claimed limitation regarding the environment being a “virtual” environment is claiming computer implementation for the abstract idea and a general link to technology such as augmented reality. This does not provide for integration into a practical application because the link to the “virtual” environment is a general link to computer technology that employs augmented reality or virtual reality. This is a general link to a particular technological environment that does not render the claims eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(h) in addition to 206.05(f).
Additionally, with respect to the argument in the reply that the claims are building the virtual model at the processing server and not at the virtual server so that processing resources can be reduced for the virtual server, this has not been found to be persuasive. To address this aspect of the claimed invention the examiner offers the following:
First, the virtual server is claimed as providing a virtual environment in a broad and non-limiting manner and has no other involvement in the claim. The abstract idea elements (functions that defines the abstract idea) are all linked to execution by the processing server, which itself is an instruction for one to use a computer to execute the abstract idea. In terms of deciding what server to have generate the model, having one server generate the model versus the other server generating the model does not result in an improvement to technology. The claim is still simply instructing one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. The claims do not recite anything about the generation of the virtual environment other the fact it is generated. The claimed “virtual environment” is broadly recited and does not require anything specific.. While it is true that by having a first of two servers perform a data processing operation will not burden the other server with the data processing operation, this act does not result in an improvement to technology and comes down to the decision of whether one should process data at one computer or another computer, such as locally or remotely. The specification in paragraph 310 states:
In some embodiments, to display a representation of a physical item in the virtual environment, a model of the physical item may need to be created. The model may be created by any suitable component, such as the insurance server 1402, the virtual environment server 1460, etc. The model may be created based upon any suitable data, such as imagery data of the item, color data of the item, dimensional data of the item, etc. As creating the model of the physical item may be computationally intensive, from a technical perspective it may be advantageous to create the model at the insurance server 1402 (rather than the virtual environment server 1460) because the virtual environment server 1460 may already be spending large amounts of resources to create and/or run the virtual environment
First, the specification teaches that it does not matter what server generates the model, it can be the virtual server or the processing server, or any suitable component can create the model according to the specification. The claims do not recite anything that is computationally taking a large amount of resources such that the virtual server cannot generate the model that is also broadly claimed as just being generated. The claim recites that each of the steps that defines the abstract idea is performed by the processing server with a token recitation to having a virtual server that generates a broadly recited virtual environment. That does not amount to claiming a configuration that results in an improvement to technology. If the model is generated at the processing server then the virtual server does not have to generate the model, and if the model is generated at the virtual server then the processing server (that itself might be overloaded with processing requests) would not have to generate the model, and/or alternatively one could have another component generate the model to free up the virtual server and the processing server, none of which result in an improvement to technology that renders the claims eligible. If the position of the applicant were true, then all claimed computer related inventions that involves two computers, such as a remote computer and a client computer could just recite a first computer as performing an abstract idea, with an argument that the other computer does not have to expend computational resources to perform the abstract idea. The result of the claim language and the additional elements when viewed with the claim as a whole is that the applicant is instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using computers and by having a processing server perform the recited steps that defines the abstract idea. The above is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner. See MPEP 2106.05(f), (h).
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea in a virtual environment, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed virtual environment server is claiming a computer that is configured to generate a virtual environment. This is a link to using a computer to provide a virtual environment, which is itself not defined in the claim and can be any “virtual” environment, such as a simply overlay on a video. The virtual server is a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. The steps/functions that defines the abstract idea are claimed as being performed by the processing server. The processing server is performing the functions recited in the claim, that includes the presentation of the representation, the virtual representation, and the set of potential repair options to the user. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea where the processing server is simply being linked to the execution of the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network, all generically recited. The claimed limitation regarding the environment being a “virtual” environment is claiming computer implementation for the abstract idea and a general link to technology such as augmented reality. This does not provide for integration into a practical application because the link to the “virtual” environment is a general link to computer technology that employs augmented reality or virtual reality. This is a general link to a particular technological environment that does not render the claims eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(h) in addition to 206.05(f).
With respect to the processing server generating the model instead of the virtual server, the examiner refers to the comments made for the 2nd prong that are equally applicable to step 2B. The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard.
Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 17 are not found to be eligible.
For claims 2, 10, 18, reciting that the item is a home or vehicle or personal article is reciting more about the abstract idea and the item that the data of the claim represents. There is no actual item in the claim scope as this is just the intended use of the system as far as the kind of item it is being used with. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 3, 11, 19, the claimed determining of the repair options by sending an indication of the item to be repaired to a repair facility, receiving a repair option from the repair facility, and adding the repair option to the potential repair options, is a further embellishment of the same abstract idea of claims 1, 9, 17. A person can perform the claimed steps by receiving information on paper indicating an item to be repaired, where a reply is received via paper that sets forth the repair options. All that is claimed is more about the abstract idea and linking the execution of the abstract idea to the “one or more processors of the processing server” that was addressed for claims 1, 9, 17, to which the applicant is referred. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 4, 12, 20, the receiving of the repair option with a price and presenting the repair option with the price is reciting more about the abstract idea of claims 1, 9, 17. This claim is reciting the equivalent to a written estimate for repair work and is something that is part of the abstract idea. This continues to define a certain method of organizing human activities. The one or more processor of the processing server have been treated in the same manner as set forth for claims 1, 9, 17. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 14, building the model based on the imagery based on dimensions, is reciting more about the abstract idea of the claims. This can be done using paper and an image on paper. The one or more processor of the processing server and recitation to “virtual” have been treated in the same manner as set forth for claims 1, 9. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7, 15, reciting that the item is a home and reciting that a list of increased risk of water damage or electrical fire is being displayed is also considered to be part of the abstract idea. This is claiming a risk assessment and displaying it. People can do what is claimed. This is just reciting more about the abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activities. The one or more processor of the processing server have been treated in the same manner as set forth for claims 1, 9. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 8, 16, the claimed presenting of a replacement option for the item to be repaired is reciting more about the abstract idea. If an item cannot be repaired, then it follows from warranty and insurance policies that an item can be replaced. This is also reciting more about the abstract idea of the claims in the form of a certain method of organizing human activities. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 21, reciting that the dimensions include a length and width of the damage is a recitation to more about the abstract idea. Dimensions for damage such as length or width can be ascertained by a person who is using an image to determine dimensions. No further additional element has been claimed for consideration other than those already addressed for claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 improves technical functioning, and therefore is subject matter eligible. Applicant argues that the specification identifies the technical improvement provided by the features of amended claim 1 and describes the specific implementation necessary to achieve that improvement. The applicant argues that the specification describes that the providing the virtual environment (by the virtual environment server) is computationally intensive. Thus, to conserve computational resources on the already-burdened virtual environment server, the applicant argues that amended claim 1 builds the virtual model of the physical item to be repaired based upon the imagery data of the physical item to be repaired at the processing server rather than the virtual environment server. The applicant argues that the claims recite a specific technical solution-offloading the task of building the virtual model from the already-burdened virtual environment server to a separate processing server-that improves the functioning of the overall computer system by conserving computational resources on the virtual environment server. This is not persuasive. The claims do not recite anything about the virtual environment that is computationally intensive as argued and nothing that is claimed indicates that the virtual server is overburdened as has been argued. Also, having one computer as opposed to another perform a given step is not improving the functioning of anything, it is just having one of two computers do something. The argument is based on assumptions that are not reflected in the actual claim language.
The virtual server is claimed as providing a virtual environment in a broad and non-limiting manner and has no other involvement in the claim. The abstract idea elements (functions that defines the abstract idea) are all linked to execution by the processing server, which itself is an instruction for one to use a computer to execute the abstract idea. In terms of deciding what server to have generate the model, having one server generate the model versus the other server generating the model does not result in an improvement to technology. The claim is still simply instructing one to use a computer (the processing server) to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. The claims do not recite anything about the generation of the virtual environment other the fact it is generated. The claimed “virtual environment” is broadly recited and does not require anything specific. While it is true that by having a first of two servers perform a data processing operation will not burden the other server with the data processing operation, this act does not result in an improvement to technology and comes down to the decision of whether one should process data at one computer or another computer, such as locally or remotely. The specification in paragraph 310 states:
In some embodiments, to display a representation of a physical item in the virtual environment, a model of the physical item may need to be created. The model may be created by any suitable component, such as the insurance server 1402, the virtual environment server 1460, etc. The model may be created based upon any suitable data, such as imagery data of the item, color data of the item, dimensional data of the item, etc. As creating the model of the physical item may be computationally intensive, from a technical perspective it may be advantageous to create the model at the insurance server 1402 (rather than the virtual environment server 1460) because the virtual environment server 1460 may already be spending large amounts of resources to create and/or run the virtual environment
The specification teaches that it does not matter what server generates the model, it can be the virtual server or the processing server, or any suitable component can create the model according to the specification. The claims do not recite anything that is computationally taking a large amount of resources such that the virtual server is overburdened and cannot generate the model, where the model is also broadly claimed as just being generated. The claim recites that each of the steps that defines the abstract idea is performed by the processing server, with a token recitation to having a virtual server that generates the broadly recited virtual environment. That does not amount to claiming a configuration that results in an improvement to technology. If the model is generated at the processing server then the virtual server does not have to generate the model, and if the model is generated at the virtual server then the processing server (that itself might be overloaded with processing requests) would not have to generate the model, and/or alternatively one could have another component generate the model to free up the virtual server and the processing server, none of which result in an improvement to technology that renders the claims eligible. If the position of the applicant were true, then all claimed computer related inventions that involves two computers, such as a remote computer and a client computer could just recite a first computer as performing an abstract idea, with an argument that the other computer does not have to expend computational resources to perform the abstract idea. The result of the claim language and the additional elements when viewed with the claim as a whole is that the applicant is instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using computers and by having a processing server perform the recited steps that defines the abstract idea. The argument(s) are not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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 at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights