DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to arguments and amendments filed 07/25/2028.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 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.
1. Claims 1-7, 15-24 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious under Eisen (2020/0092272) as modified by Qryptal (Secure & Easy way to prevent Insurance fraud).
As to claims 1 and 18: Eisen teaches a system for data transfer and platform integration using quick response (QR) codes (paragraph 0153), comprising:
a computing device (1105, 1107) in communication with a software platform (1101, 1103), the computing device programmed to:
execute an application program installed on the computing device (paragraph 0147);
read one or more QR codes from the application program to obtain a first encrypted data item, the one or more QR codes transmitted to the application program from the software platform (figure 11, showing element 1103 scanning barcode on 1101 and sending the information to 1107, steps 1123, 1125);
decrypt, using a decryption key, the first encrypted data item to obtain a first data item (paragraphs 0050-0051, 0099, 0152);
generate, by the application program, first analysis data based at least in part on the first data item (step 1129); and
transmit the first analysis data to the software platform for processing by the software platform (steps 1131, 1143, 1145).
Eisen is silent as to that the QR code stores information related to an insurance claim assignment.
Qryptal teaches a QR code that stores information related to a property insurance claim (shown is a QR code embedded in a property insurance claim which is encrypted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Eisen with the teachings of Qryptal so that the QR code might be used to avoid insurance fraud by having a secure QR code (Qryptal). Additionally, QR codes can bear any type of information, and the teachings of Eisen function the same with the data proposed to be used in Qryptal. It would not require undue testing to combine the two teachings as it does not change the function of either reference to add detail to the data type being used.
As to claims 2 and 19: Eisen teaches that the software platform receives and stores the first analysis data (paragraph 0152, where the device stores data shared between the devices, including data pertinent to authentication).
As to claims 3 and 20: Eisen teaches that prior to transmission of the QR code to the application program, the software platform receives an assignment associated with a property claim (figure 11, step 1111, paragraph 0032, wherein “property claim” is sufficiently general so as to encompass multiple ideas listed here, included taking ownership of an online identity or an insurance claim).
As to claims 4 and 21: Eisen teaches that the software platform generates the first item data based at least in part on the assignment (figure 11 is pertinent to the user ID and identifier data discussed in paragraph 0032).
As to claims 5 and 22: Eisen teaches that the software platform encrypts the first item data to generate the encrypted first item data and stores the encrypted first item data in the QR code (step 1123, paragraph 0043).
As to claims 6 and 23: Eisen teaches that the software platform sends the QR code to the computing device (figure 11, steps 1125 and 1127, wherein the barcode is scanned and the barcode’s data is transmitted to the computing device).
As to claims 7 and 24: Eisen teaches that the software platform displays the QR code (1109).
As to claims 15 and 32: Eisen teaches that the first item data is converted into a data transfer format for transferring the first item data from the software platform to the computing device (paragraph 0156, wherein the data is converted before sending).
As to claims 16 and 33: Eisen teaches that the first item data is encrypted in the data transfer format (paragraph 0156, wherein the image data is sent directly without prior decoding).
As to claims 17 and 34: Eisen teaches that the encrypted first item data is encoded in the data transfer format (examiner is interpreting this to be the image of the displayed QR code, therefore the image file is the data transfer format).
2. Claims 8-13 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisen (2020/0092272) as modified by Qryptal (Secure & Easy way to prevent Insurance fraud) as applied to claims and 18, and further in view of Speasl (2019/0236732). The teachings of Eisen as modified by Qryptal are discussed above.
As to claims 8 and 25: Eisen as modified by Qryptal teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 18, further including that the application program is meant for insurance claims (paragraph 0032).
Eisen is silent as to that the computing device is further programmed to download an insurance claims estimating assignment.
Speasl teaches a system for sending data from a user device to a server which is programmed to download an insurance claims estimating assignment (paragraph 0128, appraisal data, figures 6B, 6C).
As to claims 9 and 26: Eisen as modified by Qryptal teaches that the computing device is further programmed to scan a QR code.
Eisen is silent as to that specifically the QR code is associated with a property item listed in a particular line in the insurance claims estimating software application.
Speasl teaches a QR code peripheral for the computer device (paragraph 0139), wherein data is communicated to the remote device via a user device which is further encrypted and containing identifying information (figures 10-12).
As to claims 10 and 27: Eisen as modified by Qryptal teaches that the computing device is further programmed to import item data with a unique identifier, the item data associated with a property item (unique identifier being identifying information, figure 11, step 1111, paragraph 0032, wherein “property item” is sufficiently general so as to encompass multiple ideas listed here, included taking ownership of an online identity or an insurance claim).
As to claims 11 and 28: Eisen as modified by Qryptal teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 18.
Eisen is silent as to that the computing device is further programmed to receive a sample of a physical structure based at least in part on the item data.
Speasl teaches using an unmanned vehicle to capture data related to a property including physical structure information (figure 12, steps 1210-1225) and sending the information to the server, which is the equivalent to the computing device (step 1240).
As to claims 12 and 29: Eisen as modified by Qryptal teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 18.
Eisen is silent as to that the computing device is further programmed to analyze the sample to generate analysis data.
Speasl teaches that the computing device uses the information sent by the unmanned vehicle to generate a report (figures 6A-6C, paragraph 0040).
As to claims 13 and 30: Eisen as modified by Qryptal teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 18, further including that the computing device sends the information to an associated third party (figure 2, 203 sends data to 215).
Eisen is silent as to that the computing device is further programmed to send the analysis data to the particular line in the insurance claims estimating software application.
Speasl teaches that the data is sent to a program which estimates insurance claims (figures 6A-6C, paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Eisen as modified by Qryptal with the teachings of Speasl so that Eisen includes further detail about insurance related data and data analysis, thereby increasing the specific applicability of the communication system envisioned in Eisen. Eisen recites a method of transferring data using QR codes in many scenarios including insurance applications, so the combination with Speasl is natural and would not require undue testing as Speasl is specifically directed toward communicating in an insurance claim scenario. The data being transferred in both applications is encrypted and pertinent to the same field of endeavor.
Response to Amendment
3. Claims 1 and 18 are amended to include detail about the QR code data.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims are newly rejected by Eisen as modified by Qryptal. However, examiner notes that the google search history places Tangri “over 10 years ago”, and a more in-depth search would very likely yield a public-facing date which is significantly before the effective filing date of the instant application. However, examiner has found a number of code and insurance companies using encrypted QR codes for insurance claims with dates before the effective filing date, and has therefore used a different reference for this purpose. To emphasize this point, examiner has added additional references which envision using QR codes for insurance claims, which are not relied upon in this rejection, but could be used virtually interchangeably.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-6:30. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Lee can be reached on (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/MICHAEL G LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights