DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 04/27/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 have been amended and hereby entered.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to applicant’s arguments pertaining to Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the argument that the claims recite an improvement to the computer image analysis technology and machine learning by analyzing new images to detect features of real properties (e.g., building material, location relative to terrain, type of housing), determine a shared risk profile based on the detected real property features, and determine sub-regions that indicate the shared features of the real properties located within the sub-region, the Examiner fails to see how this amounts to a practical application, technical improvement or significantly more, as this is similar to Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), where the Courts found that instead of disclosing “a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts,” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or “a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process,” Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150, rather as was in Recentive, the only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment and akin to Recentive, that the requirements that the machine learning model be generically trained or updated, is not a technological improvement in that training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning (Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025)) similar to the instant application which is further describing the selected materials used for training and updating the model (images with features of real properties (e.g., building material, location relative to terrain, type of housing)). Additionally, with respect to “analyzing, using the machine learning model and for one or more sub-regions of the plurality of sub-regions, the one or more new images to determine a collection of coordinate pairs, wherein each coordinate pair comprises a latitude and a longitude, wherein the collection describes a boundary of a customized shape corresponding to the sub-region, wherein determining the customized shape includes determining the shared risk profile by detecting patterns associated with the one or more real properties in the sub-region, and wherein detecting the patterns includes detecting one or more features comprising at least one of a terrain, a type of housing, and a type of material from the one or more new images”, asides from “using machine learning”, the limitation is entirely abstract, and could be performed mentally. And as shown in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. above, using machine learning in new environment and further defining the materials to which the model is trained and updated is insufficient to show an improvement to technology.
For the reasons above, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a system, method and non-transitory computer-readable media.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
receiving historical images comprising a plurality of geographic regions, wherein each geographic region of the plurality of geographic regions includes a plurality of historical real properties;
receiving historical sub-region data comprising a plurality of historical sub-regions for each geographic region, wherein each historical sub-region of the plurality of historical sub-regions is associated with a historical shared risk profile and a corresponding historical rating factor for the historical real properties located within each historical sub-region;
training a machine learning model using the historical rating factors obtained for training and to detect patterns associated with real properties located within the geographic region having different risk profiles using the historical images and the historical sub-region data, wherein training the machine learning model configures the machine learning model to output sub-regions for new geographic regions and shared risk profiles associated with real properties located within the sub-regions from new images;
analyzing one or more new images corresponding to a particular geographic region, wherein analyzing the one or more new images results in output of a plurality of sub-regions for the particular geographic region, and a shared risk profile for one or more real properties in each sub-region of the plurality of sub-regions;
analyzing, for one or more sub-regions of the plurality of sub-regions, the one or more new images to determine a collection of coordinate pairs, wherein each coordinate pair comprises a latitude and a longitude, wherein the collection describes a boundary of a customized shape corresponding to the sub-region, wherein determining the customized shape includes determining the shared risk profile by detecting patterns associated with one or more real properties in the sub-region and wherein detecting the patterns includes detecting one or more features comprising at least one of a terrain, a type of housing, and a type of material from the one or more images;
updating the model in response to the analysis of the one or more new images and the determination of the customized shape;
updating the model, in response to the determination of a rating factor for the one or more real properties located within the customized shape;
generating based on the rating factor associated with the customized shape and the shared risk profile for the one or more real properties located within the customized shape, an output.
The steps recited under Step 2A Prong One under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including sales activities or behaviors) but for the recitation of generic computer components to analyze and organize data related to real properties into different custom generated geographic regions, updating rating factors for a property based on the analysis and generating an output based on a rating factor, and as discussed in the specification and claimed in the dependent claims, the output may be a recommendation a product or service based on the ratings, such as an insurance product as described in [0058], and therefore describes sales activities and behaviors (recommending a product). That is other than reciting a computing device, a processor, memory unit, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, a database and a geo-coded territory rating system nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a computing device, a processor, memory unit, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, a database and a geo-coded territory rating system. The computing device, processor, memory unit, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, database and geo-coded territory rating system are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers. Additionally, the machine learning model is claimed in a highly generic manner, such that even if considered as an additional element, it is a generic component and part of the technical environment in which the idea is being limited to. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computing device, a graphical user interface, processor, memory unit, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, database and a geo-coded territory rating system to perform the steps recites in Step 2A Prong One amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. With respect to the training a machine learning model limitation, [0048] of the specification describes the algorithms which the model may utilize, such as, a linear regression, a decision tree, a support vector machine, a random forest, a k-means algorithm, gradient boosting algorithms, dimensionality reduction algorithms, and therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation, the training the machine learning model is akin to performing a series of mathematical calculations, similar to ineligible claim 2 of Example 47 in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See also Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Additionally, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result (TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);, and Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values) are well-understood routine and conventional and insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, similar to the instant application is directed towards analyze and organize data related to real properties into different custom generated geographic regions, updating rating factors for a property based on the analysis and generating an output based on a rating factor. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 3-7 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas further defining the abstract idea. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights