DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to arguments and amendments filed 07/28/2025.
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 .
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 Tangri (QR Codes in Insurance Sector).
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 property claim assignment.
Tangri teaches a QR code that stores information related to a property insurance claim (shown is a number of uses for QR codes relating to insurance, including claims on property insurance, pages 8 and 9).
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 Tangri so that the QR code might be used to fulfill legal requirements in particular countries (Tangri, page 7). 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 Tangri. 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 Tangri (QR Codes in Insurance Sector) as applied to claims and 18, and further in view of Speasl (2019/0236732). The teachings of Eisen as modified by Tangri are discussed above.
As to claims 8 and 25: Eisen as modified by Tangri 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 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 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 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 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 Tangri 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 Tagnri 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. Claims 13 and 30 are amended for language.
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 Tangri.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876