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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claims 1, 9, 17, the claim recites the analyzing of imagery data to determine dimensions of damage done to an item to be replaced. The claims recite that the item is to be repaired, not replaced. What is the item that is to be replaced? Is this the same as the item to be repaired? This is not clear and renders the claim indefinite.
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 a[n] 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 replaced; 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:
via one or more processors,
claiming that the environment is a “virtual environment”
For claim 17, the additional elements are:
one or more processors,
one or more memories including computer executable instructions (to perform the steps that define the abstract idea)
claiming that the environment is a “virtual environment”
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 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. 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).
This 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.
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 they do not amount to more than 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. 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). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the PEG found in the MPEP 2106.
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” 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 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 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 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 ahs 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 1-20 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. The applicant argues that the claims have been amended to recite determining dimensions for damage to an item by analyzing the imagery data. The applicant argues that this is the type of element that the office action indicated was lacking. The office action did not make any sort of statement that indicates the determining of dimensions using imagery would be the sort of element that would render the claims eligible. The use of imagery data to determine dimensions of damage is part of the abstract idea.
The applicant argues that the claims recite the use of imagery data in a specific manner. All that is claimed is the analyzing of the imagery data to determine dimensions for damage. This is part of the abstract idea and is not reciting a specific method of analyzing imagery data. The claim is reciting the end result to be achieved by the analyzing step, but does not recite how the analyzing occurs. There is nothing claimed that would amount to the “technical process” for analyzing imagery data that the applicant argues. For this reason the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The applicant argues that the claims improve technology for computer based repair assistance. The claims are not found to be improving technology or any of the elements that relate to technology. 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. 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). Technology is not being improved as a result of the claimed invention. The additional elements of the claim that are technology do not amount to more than a general instruction for one to use a computer and virtual reality as a tool to execute the abstract idea. This does not provide for integration into a practical application.
The applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more because they claim the receiving of imagery data (this is part of the abstract idea), analyzing the imagery data (this is part of the abstract idea), and building and presenting a virtual model (a link to computer implementation and virtual reality in general). This is not persuasive. 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. 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). Technology is not being improved as a result of the claimed invention. The additional elements of the claim that are directed to technology do not amount to more than an instruction for one to use a computer and virtual reality as a tool to execute the abstract idea. This does not provide for significantly more.
The applicant also argues that the imagery data is not just received and used, but it is analyzed to extract technical information such as dimensions for damage and argues that this makes the claims eligible. This is not persuasive because the argued analyzing step is part of the abstract idea. Determining dimension of damage by looking at an image is part of the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive because what is being argued is an element that defines the abstract idea. The fact that the images are analyzed does not take this element out of the abstract idea and make it a technical operation. Nothing is claimed about how the imagery is analyzed such that it could not be performed by a person and/or that it could only be performed by using technology. The argument is not persuasive.
The arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
Conclusion
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