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 .
Status of Claims
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/27/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 are currently pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.” 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”, “a graphical user interface”, “at least one of machine learning techniques”, and “image recognition techniques”. 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”, “a graphical user interface”, “at least one of machine learning techniques”, and “image recognition techniques” 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.” 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”, “a graphical user interface”, “at least one of machine learning techniques”, and “image recognition techniques”. 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”, “a graphical user interface”, “at least one of machine learning techniques”, and “image recognition techniques” 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;.” 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”, “a graphical user interface”, “at least one of machine learning techniques”, and “image recognition techniques”. 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”, “a graphical user interface”, “at least one of machine learning techniques”, and “image recognition techniques” 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
7. 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 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. That is, while the Office Action states that the additional elements "recite generic computer components … the amended claims do not merely invoke a generic computer to "apply" an abstract idea, but instead provide an ordered combination that recites a particular technical solution to a particular technical problem. The present application identifies the following technical problem: "the site of storm damage may be physically inaccessible for some time after the storm, and initial claims data may be inaccurately reported by insured parties." See present application, para. [00031. The present application also identifies the following technical solution …Accordingly, the present application describes that "previous computer functionality facilitating such planning and response is itself improved, such as by determination of an appropriate aerial platform to use to obtain image data and by processing of the image data as described herein." See present application, para. [0104]. Claim 1 recites an ordered combination that provides the particular technical solution to the particular technical problem, namely: "after an occurrence of an event that is a potential cause of insured losses, selecting one of (i) a manned aircraft, …"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" Consequently, amended claim 1 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because amended 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 amended similarly, and 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, and their respective dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-3).
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”, “a graphical user interface”, “at least one of machine learning techniques”, and “image recognition techniques”. 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
8. 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.
9. 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
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.
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.
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