DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 12/10/2025. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1-5 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process), claims 8-12 are directed to a system (i.e., machine), and claims 15-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “after an occurrence of an event that is a potential cause of insured losses, … to obtain image data depicting the plurality of properties, wherein the selecting is based on one or more of: (i) a type of the event, (ii) a time specified for receipt of image data, (iii) actual weather conditions, (iv) expected weather conditions, (v) a region of interest, or (vi) a size of the region of interest, …; receiving, …, image data depicting the plurality of properties; accessing, …, previous image data depicting the plurality of properties, prior to the occurrence of the event; based on processing the image data depicting the plurality of properties and the previous image data depicting the plurality of properties, determining, …, a damage severity level for each property of the plurality of properties; and displaying, …, a map depicting (i) a first portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having a first damage severity level, and (ii) a second portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having a second damage severity level; and processing, …, an insurance claim associated with a particular property of the plurality of properties based at least upon a damage severity level of the particular property.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) for processing an insurance claim associated with a particular property of the plurality of properties based at least upon a damage severity level of the particular property. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a manned aircraft”, “a satellite”, “an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)”, “one or more processors”, ‘at least one network connection”, “at least one image capturing device”, “an aerial platform”, and “a graphical user interface”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 elements of “a manned aircraft”, “a satellite”, “an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)”, “one or more processors”, ‘at least one network connection”, “at least one image capturing device”, “an aerial platform”, and “a graphical user interface” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit) -- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 8:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 8 recites the at least following limitations of “after an occurrence of an event that is a potential cause of insured losses, … to obtain image data depicting the plurality of properties, wherein the selecting is based on one or more of: (i) a type of the event, (ii) a time specified for receipt of image data, (iii) actual weather conditions, (iv) expected weather conditions, (v) a region of interest, or (vi) a size of the region of interest, …; receive, …, image data depicting the plurality of properties; access, …, previous image data depicting the plurality of properties, the previous image data for each property of the plurality of properties, prior to the occurrence of the event; based on processing the image data depicting the plurality of properties and the previous image data depicting the plurality of properties, determine a damage severity level for each property of the plurality of properties; and display, …, a map depicting (i) a first portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having a first damage severity level, and (ii) a second portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having a second damage severity level; and process an insurance claim associated with a particular property of the plurality of properties based at least upon a damage severity level of the particular property.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) for processing an insurance claim associated with a particular property of the plurality of properties based at least upon a damage severity level of the particular property. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 8 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a manned aircraft”, “a satellite”, “an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)”, “a user interface”, “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “at least one network connections”, “at least one image capturing device”, “an aerial platform”, and “a graphical user interface”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 elements of “a manned aircraft”, “a satellite”, “an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)”, “a user interface”, “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “at least one network connections”, “at least one image capturing device”, “an aerial platform”, and “a graphical user interface” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit) -- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 15:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 15 recites the at least following limitations of “after an occurrence of an event that is a potential cause of insured losses, … to obtain image data depicting the plurality of properties wherein the selecting is determining based on one or more of: (i) a type of the event, (ii) a time specified for receipt of image data, (iii) actual weather conditions, (iv) expected weather conditions, (v) a region of interest, or (vi) a size of the region of interest, whether to obtain the image data depicting the plurality of properties …; receiving, …, image data depicting the plurality of properties; access previous image data depicting the plurality of properties, prior to the occurrence of the event; based on processing the image data depicting the plurality of properties and the previous image data depicting the plurality of properties, determine a damage severity level for each property of the plurality of properties; and displaying, …, a map depicting (i) a first portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having a first damage severity level, and (ii) a second portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having a second damage severity level; and process an insurance claim associated with a particular property of the plurality of properties based at least upon a damage severity level of the particular property.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) for processing an insurance claim associated with a particular property of the plurality of properties based at least upon a damage severity level of the particular property. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 15 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a manned aircraft”, “a satellite”, “an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)”, “one or more processors”, “at least one network connection”, “at least one image capturing device”, “an aerial platform”, and “a graphical user interface”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 elements of “a manned aircraft”, “a satellite”, “an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)”, “one or more processors”, “at least one network connection”, “at least one image capturing device”, “an aerial platform”, and “a graphical user interface” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit) -- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9-12, and 16-18 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9, and 16: the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the one or more processors recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 by wherein the map depicts (i) a first region including the first portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having the first damage severity level, and (ii) a second region including the second portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having the second damage severity level, and wherein displaying the map includes: displaying, in the first region, a first pattern; and displaying, in the second region, a second pattern different from the first pattern. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the dependent claims also amount to merely using a computer (i.e., one or more processors, a graphical user interface), in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely uses a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 17: the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the one or more processors recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 by causing, using the one or more processors, funds to be provided to an insured party associated with a particular property of the plurality of properties based at least upon a damage severity level of the particular property. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the dependent claims also amount to merely using a computer (i.e., one or more processors), in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely uses a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 11, and 18: the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the one or more processors recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 by causing, using the one or more processors, an indication of a damage severity level of a particular property to be provided to an insured party associated with the particular property. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the dependent claims also amount to merely using a computer (i.e., one or more processors), in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely uses a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 5 and 12: simply provide further definition to “determining the damage severity level” recited independent claims 1 and 8. Simply stating that wherein determining the damage severity level is further based on weather data associated with the event does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that first, the Office Action does not clearly explain why additional elements such as "an aerial platform", "a manned aircraft", "a satellite", and "an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)" are considered "generic computer components." Second, as noted by the USPTO's recently issued "Memorandum re: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" from August 4, 2025 (hereinafter the "Memo"): "An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome … Applicant respectfully submits that, rather than merely reciting "adding the words "apply it" to the alleged abstract idea of "processing an insurance claim associated with a particular property of the plurality of properties based at least upon a damage severity level of the particular property," (see Office Action, p. 4), the claims recite a particular solution to a problem and/or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as outlined by the Memo. This particular solution includes, as recited by claim 1, inter alia, "after an occurrence of an event that is a potential cause of insured losses, selecting one of (i) a manned aircraft, (ii) a satellite, or (iii) an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) from which to obtain image data depicting the plurality of properties" … and (ii) a second portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having a second damage severity level". Finally, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states "Examples that the courts have indicated may be sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology include: Particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors, Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017)." Here, the claim 1 recites a particular configuration of sensors: "at least one image capturing device oriented on an aerial platform of the selected one of: (i) the manned aircraft, (ii) the satellite, or (iii) the UAS." Furthermore, claim 1 recites a particular method of using the data from the sensors, which includes, inter alia: "selecting one of (i) a manned aircraft, (ii) a satellite, or (iii) an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) from which to obtain image data depicting the plurality of properties, "wherein the selecting is based on one or more of: (i) a type of the event, (ii) a time specified for receipt of the image data, (iii) actual weather conditions …and "based on processing the image data depicting the plurality of properties and the previous image data depicting the plurality of properties, determining, using the one or more processors, a damage severity level for each property of the plurality of properties." Consequently, claim 1 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because claim 1 integrates any abstract ideas allegedly recited by the claims into a practical application, by improving technology or a technical field. Claims 8 and 15 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for similar reasons. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-4).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 8, 15 at issue further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a manned aircraft”, “a satellite”, “an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)”, “one or more processors”, ‘at least one network connection”, “at least one image capturing device”, “an aerial platform”, and “a graphical user interface”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, none of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
8. The best prior art of record, Battcher et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0245210), hereinafter, “Battcherr”, Hopkins, III (U.S. Patent No. 8,650,106), hereinafter, “Hopkins, III”, and Bernstein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,062,118), hereinafter, “Bernstein”, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the at least instant application claim limitations of "after an occurrence of an event that is a potential cause of insured losses, determining, based on one or more of: (i) a type of the event, (ii) a time specified for receipt of image data, (iii) actual weather conditions, (iv) expected weather conditions, (v) a region of interest, or (vi) a size of the region of interest, whether to obtain the image data depicting the plurality of properties from one of: (i) a manned aircraft, (ii) a satellite, or (iii) an unmanned aircraft system (UAS); determining, using the one or more processors, a damage severity level for each property of the plurality of properties; and displaying, using the one or more processors, via a graphical user interface, a map depicting (i) a first portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having a first damage severity level, and (ii) a second portion of properties, of the plurality of properties, having a second damage severity level; and processing, using the one or more processors, an insurance claim associated with a particular property of the plurality of properties based at least upon a damage severity level of the particular property.” 2DOCKET No. 2012.07.038.MC0 (SAMS12-00554) APPLICATION NO. 13/758,303
Conclusion
9. 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 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights