DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received October 16, 2025. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1, 8, 11-13, 15-18 and 20 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 18/331,360 filed 06/08/2023 is a Continuation of 16692421 , filed 4. 11/22/2019 ,now U.S. Patent # 11756126 and having 2 RCE-type filing therein 16692421 is a Continuation of 15966133, , filed 04/30/2018, now abandoned and having 2 RCE-type filing therein 15966133 is a Continuation of 14627170 , filed 02/20/2015 snow U.S. Patent # 10013718 and having 2 RCE-type filing therein 14627170 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62023711 , filed 07/11/2014
Applicant Name/Assignee: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
Inventor: Leise, William
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations pointing to Thales Visionix v US, arguing in the Thales opinion, patent eligibility was found in the use of sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring relative positions and orientation of moving objects. Applicant argues that the claimed particular configuration of sensors and method of using raw data from the sensors in order to accurately calculate position and orientation of an object on a moving platform is similarly non-abstract. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Although applicant’s specification and claim limitations recite placing sensors on a moving platform in different locations for measuring strength of signals based on measuring relative positions and orientation is analogous to the placement of sensors on a moving platform in different locations for more accurate measurements of sensor data collected as found patent eligible in Thales, the applications placement and use of sensors on a moving platform does not improve upon technology as found in Thales. Thales improvement dates back to 2000 which is years ago is known technology and well understood. Cases such as Thales are used for guidance on what is considered in the analysis for patent eligibility not to copy what has already been done. In the Thales case the claims provided an improvement to technology "a method that eliminates many "complications" inherent in previous solutions for determining position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. '159 patent at 5:62-6:32." This is distinguishable from the present case, where the improvement is to the determination of costs of repair (an abstract idea) using data collected from sensors on a moving vehicle. The technology component of the sensors arrangement and detection is not an improvement to technology. Instead it is merely being applied (under Step 2A, Prong Two). The difference in the strength of signals is not because technology is improved because of the placement of the sensors on the moving platform but because of science. Distance in sensors from the source of the data collected for signal strength is simply part of the inherent science. Evidence showing this technology was known and is merely acting in its normal function is provided in Step 2B. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to McRO, Recentive analytics, where the courts held eligibility can be found in specific computer techniques different from those human use on their own to product natural seeming lip motion for speech. Applicant argues that the claimed limitations, similar to McRO use specific techniques different from those human use on their own to determine the extent of vehicle damage. Applicant argues that humans would not determine damage to vehicles in a crash by having two humans seated in different locations in a vehicle continuously talking to each other and determining the extent of the damage by measuring how much the amplitude of one person’s voice heard by another is changed. Applicant points to the specification para 0008 which discloses that “damage vehicles are typically brought to a location where an appraisal/assessment of damage is made”. With respect to applicant’s analysis as it relates to McRO, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant’s argument. McRO did not find patent eligibility “specific computer techniques different from those human use on their own to product natural seeming lip motion for speech”, rather McRO patent eligibility was found in “creating facial expressions and synchronized lip movements to match to words” by “automated the process of matching lip movements to words by feeding transcripts into a computer that had set rules for how to match lip movements to certain sounds, creating accurate facial expressions and movements.”. The rules as determined by the court, “sets aim to produce more realistic speech by taking into consideration the differences in mouth positions for similar phonemes based on context.". Previous technology, would have animators manually determine morph weight sets for each keyframe based on phoneme timings in a script. Because the pronounced phoneme and drawn keyframe corresponded in time, this prior art process synchronized the lips and facial expression of the 3-D character. A computer program would then interpolate between the keyframes set by the animator, creating the intermediate frames by determining the appropriate morph weight sets at intermediate points in time simply based on continuously transitioning between the keyframes. In McRO, rules would automate the animators tasks, by determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes. This automation is accomplished through rules that are applied to the timed transcript to determine the morph weight outputs. The patents describe many exemplary rule sets that go beyond simply matching single phonemes from the timed transcript with the appropriate morph target. Instead, these rule sets aim to produce more realistic speech by "taking into consideration the differences in mouth positions for similar phonemes based on context.” The court found that McRO provided explicit details by setting out meaningful requirements for each set of rules which allowed computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions that previously could only be produce by human animator, improving upon the capability of computers to mimic facial animation. This is not the case of the current application. The claim limitations do not use specific techniques to determine the extent of vehicle damage in such a way that it improves upon the quality of sensor data collect over previous data collection using sensors. As stated above in the response to applicant’s argument with respect to Thales, the placement of sensors in different locations and orientations on a moving platform, to collect accurate data using the placement of the sensors for measuring strength of the signals received in order to provide a measurement is impact is merely applying known technology in its ordinary capacity in order to collect data for analysis of the extent damage in an accident and then output the result for use in determining repair related data. McRO is not applicable. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that based on the patent eligibility as set forth in the response above, both independent claim 1 and the similar limitations of independent claim 11 are patent eligible. Accordingly dependent claims 2-10 of claim 1 and 12-20 of claim 11 area also patent eligible. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See response above. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “receiving, by one or more processors in a client device, sensor data, wherein the sensor data includes at least data a received signal strength of a signal received by a computing device and transmitted from a spatial sensor, wherein the spatial sensor is attached to a first vehicle part of a vehicle, the computing device is attached to a second part of the vehicle, and the sensor data a greater received signal strength of the signal is indicative of a shorter distance between the first vehicle part and the second vehicle part”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Mullen teaches “receiving, by one or more processors in a client device, sensor data, wherein the sensor data includes at least data a received signal … of a signal received by a computing device and transmitted from a spatial sensor, wherein the spatial sensor is attached to a first vehicle part of a vehicle, the computing device is attached to a second part of the vehicle, and the sensor data … is indicative of a shorter distance between the first vehicle part and the second vehicle part” para 0049 wherein the prior art teaches onboard computing device of coupled to sensors such as an accelerometer (spatial sensor) coupled to the vehicle to measure acceleration along several axes including direction and velocity; para 0051, para 0061 wherein the prior art teaches computing device (e.g. speedometer, accelerometer, compass,)divided into front end and back end components permanently or removably attached to a vehicle interfaces with various sensors coupled to the vehicle, para 0077 wherein the prior art teaches establishing dimensional space the vehicle moves through”. The prior art Mullen does not explicitly teach “a received signal strength of a signal received” or “the sensor data a greater received signal strength of the signal”. The prior art Kaerner teaches the in para 0018 an evaluation is limited to a short period of time after the collision by identifying the first signal peak and compare the amplitude of the first signal peak (para 0018) and teaches the crash signals measured the amplitude difference between the first peak of the two signals (para 0039). Accordingly in combination the prior art references teach the claimed limitations.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitations “transmitting, by the one or more processors in the client device and to a server device” and “determining, by one or more processors in the a server device, an extent of a damage…”. The examiner is interpreting the “a server” that the “one or more processors in the client device” transmit data to and “”receiving …data” from to be a different server than the server device whose “one or more processors” perform the operation “determining… an extent of damage” and “determining …a treatment”. For clarity in the prosecution the examiner is annotating in the recitation of the limitations, the ”a server” as server1 and the “one or more processors in a server” to be server2.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-10:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recite method steps (1) receiving …data from a first and second sensor at different parts of a vehicle (2) detecting a change in signal strength of signal of sensor data (3) detecting a crash involving vehicle based on change in signal strength (4) determining crash information by analyzing sensor data (5) transmitting …indication of crash detected and crash information (6) determining extent of damage based on analyzed data (7) determining…treatment/repair complexity/difficulty level for treatment/repair (8) receiving repair data determined (9) display repair data.
The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial interaction. When considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward analyzing data received to determine damage and extent to repair the damage and displaying the result. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial interactions and business relations. it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Method and System for Automatically Streamlining the Vehicle Claims Process,” and discloses, in the Background section, that insured vehicles are involved in accidents where if damage is present an insurance claim is filed. The damaged vehicle is brought to a location for damage appraisal to determine cost to repair, salvage or scrap. Additional costs in incurred when a vehicle is transported for the initial appraisal and further cost when the vehicle is transported to a repair or salvage location (see background spec para 0008). The Specification describes that by determining the extent of the damage to the vehicle and treatment shortly after a collision the time/costs involve would be reduced see background spec para 0008). Therefore the specification states that the problem the application is attempting to solve is to provide a less costly process to determine damage and repair needed for an insurance claim of a damaged vehicle. This concept is found in the sub-category of abstract concepts commercial interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include “one or more processors programmed in a client device” to perform the method, “a first spatial sensor attached to a first part of a vehicle”, “a computing device”, “the computing device attached to a second part of the vehicle”, “a server device” [server1], “one or more processors in a server device”[server2].
The additional element “computing device” applied to perform the steps “signal strength of a signal” “received and transmitted”
The additional element “one or more processors in a client device” applied to perform the steps “receiving” data, “transmitting …an indication of the detected crash” [data], “receiving …crash repair information” and “causing…information to be displayed”
The limitations “received and transmitted”, “receiving”, “transmitting” and “causing information to be displayed”, which according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim limitations performed by the “one or more processors in a client device” and “computing device”, are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “one or more processors in the client device” further applied to perform the steps “detecting…a change of the received signal strength”, “detecting …a crash”, “determining …crash information…determining a change of a distance between first part and the second part by analyzing the change of …received signal strength”. The additional element “one or more processors in a server device[device2]” applied to perform the steps “determining …an extent of a damage” and “determining…a treatment complexity level” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to analyze data collected/received.
The “one or more processors in the client device” and “one or more processors in the server device”, the “computing device” and “server device” are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the processors perform the recited functions. The limitations performed by the “additional elements” only recite outcomes without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the “additional elements” at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations (1)-(5) are directed toward applying a one or more processors in a client device of analyzing data received- applying generic one or more processors in a client device detect whether a crash has occurred based on data received and analyzed and transmitting the result. The combination of limitations (1) –(5) and (6)-(7) are directed toward applying “one or more processors in a server device” to analyze received data in order to determine treatment complexity for car repairs. The combination of limitations (8)-(9) are directed toward applying one or more processors in the client device for receiving crash repair information and displaying the results of the combination (1)-(7). The wherein clause does not claimed sensors do not perform any of the recited steps or narrowing the “receiving” operations by the “one or more processors in the client device”, instead the sensors are merely the source of the data received, narrowing the data received. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of receiving, analyzing and transmitting vehicle data with respect to extent of repairs where the results are transmitted and displayed, which is a process directed toward a business practice. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “receiving”, “detecting”, “determining” operations performed by the “one or more processors in the client device” or how the “determining…extent of damage” or “determining …treatment complexity” operation is performed. Rather the limitations focus on the data acted upon. Accordingly, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The combination of parts is not directed toward improvement of any of the underlying technology or to solve a problem within the technology itself.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to collect damage data, analyze damage data and display the result and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include “one or more processors programmed in a client device” to perform the method, “a first spatial sensor attached to a first part of a vehicle”, “a computing device”, “the computing device attached to a second part of the vehicle”, “a server device” [server1], “one or more processors in a server device”[server2]. The additional element “a computing device” recited at a high level to receive signals sensor data transmitted.
The additional elements recited in the claim include “one or more processors in a client device” to perform the operations of “receiving”, “detecting”, “determining”, “transmitting” and “displayed crash repair information”; the claimed “one or more processors in the server device” perform the operations “determining” …an extent of damage and “determining” a treatment complexity level –is purely functional and generic. As a result, the “one or more processors in the client device” and “one or more processors in the server device” recited by the method claims fail to offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via “one or more processors in the client device” or “one or more processors in the server device”. Accordingly it is concluded that the claims recite conventional actions in a generic way and do not provide any unconventional technical process or provide significantly more than applying the underlying technology to perform the identified abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer elements at each step of the process is purely conventional.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these processor functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
With respect to sensors attached to vehicle measuring distance between vehicle parts, the examiner provides
WO 2014/048831 A1 by Kassouf et al “provide a method and a system for inspection, maintenance or repair of vehicles, especially motor vehicles or at least one part of the vehicle in which the determination of the spatial position of a vehicle, especially of a motor vehicle or of one or more parts of the vehicle is enabled by using a simplified imaging system”…” capture of multiple images of the vehicle, especially of a motor vehicle or of one or more parts of the vehicle simultaneously from a light field imaging system and enables determination of distance and angle measurements needed to support the parameter calculation for determining the spatial position of the vehicle and of one or more parts of it”…” whereas the invention uses the plenoptic camera to achieve information about the geometrical properties and characteristics of the vehicle or of at least one part of the vehicle and its spatial position”…” determination of distances and angles needed to support the parameter calculation for determining the spatial position of the vehicle or of one or more parts of it. The used light field imaging systems are designed to process a light field image of the vehicle or of the at least one part of the vehicle. Light sensitive elements are positioned in predetermined locations and designated to determine distinct incidents angles of light coming from the vehicle. Processing means , especially digital processing means are operatively connected to the light-sensitive elements to determine from the output data of the light- sensitive elements the spatial location of the vehicle or of the at least one part of the vehicle.”; US Pub No. 2011/0233881 A1 by Baeumchen et al- para 0003, para 0009, para 0051; US Pub No. 2004/0167718 A1 by Hoenes et al.- para 0001 “Distance-measuring systems in motor vehicles for supporting parking, in which sensors for measuring distance are arranged on the vehicle, are already known”; para 0002 “ detecting device and the obstacle are taken into account when determining the distance between the vehicle and the obstacle. … calculate in the extension of those parts mounted on the vehicle which jut out beyond the remaining vehicle contour. … these may be vehicle parts themselves, add-ons to the vehicle, but also parts merely being transported by the vehicle. … parts able to be mounted on the vehicle which do not belong to the vehicle body as such, and which are either arranged as removable mass-produced components on the vehicle that are later mounted as additional equipment on the vehicle, or which are optionally secured in a removable fashion on or in the vehicle for a temporary time. …here are components which are not necessary for the driving function of the vehicle and which in general offer an additional use to the user that is not necessary for all users of the vehicle, at least not for the entire usage duration. Examples for this are, for instance, a spare wheel additionally positioned on the back of the vehicle, a bicycle likewise situated on the back of the vehicle, particularly in the case of buses or minibuses, a trailer hitch, a load jutting out beyond the vehicle contour such as a special luggage rack or a piece of luggage protruding out of the trunk or a tailgate, or a projecting plate such as a license plate or a warning plate.”
Thales Visionix v US (2000) which provides evidence that placing sensor at different positions on a moving platform in order to provide more accurate sensor data is an application of technology and configuration of sensors is known in the art.
With respect to conventional technical process of using computer technology to collect data, analyze data and output the result.
See Electric Power Group
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-10 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward determining cost for repair- business practice. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward identifying damage vehicle parts and determining total cost- a business practice. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward repair complexity includes price schedule for treating/repairing the vehicle- business practice. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward repair information include indication of treatment facilities- business practice. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward ranking treatment/repair facilities- business practice. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward selecting a treatment/repair facility- business practice. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward receiving plurality of indications of treatment/repair facilities, assigning each of the facilities to one of the treatment complexity levels and ranking treatment facilities – business practice. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward duration data for repair, prices schedule for treating damaged vehicles, location data or quality rating for suppliers- business practice. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward transmitting data, receiving a request from an owner to transmit funds and transmitting the funds- business practice.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-10 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 11-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a computer system, as in independent Claim 11 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The functions of machine claim 11 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward mental processes and methods of organizing activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The functions of machine claim 11 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a computer system comprising communication network, client device having a memory and one or more processors, the device configured to perform the operations of “receive …data”, “detect …data”, “determine crash information”, “transmit data”, and “one or more server computing devices coupled to the communication network, the server computing devices having a memory and one or more processors, the computing devices to receiving indication crash, determine a treatment complexity, the client device to “receive repair data” and “display” data–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer system for implementing a functional process will include a communication network, client device having a memory and one or more processors capable of performing the operations of “receive”, “analyze” and “transmit”. Nearly every “one or more server computing devices” will include memory and one or more processors capable of receiving data and determining complexity repair level. Nearly every client device is capable of receiving data and displaying the data.
As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
The functions of system claim 11 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
With respect to sensors attached to vehicle measuring distance between vehicle parts, the examiner provides
WO 2014/048831 A1 by Kassouf et al “provide a method and a system for inspection, maintenance or repair of vehicles, especially motor vehicles or at least one part of the vehicle in which the determination of the spatial position of a vehicle, especially of a motor vehicle or of one or more parts of the vehicle is enabled by using a simplified imaging system”…” capture of multiple images of the vehicle, especially of a motor vehicle or of one or more parts of the vehicle simultaneously from a light field imaging system and enables determination of distance and angle measurements needed to support the parameter calculation for determining the spatial position of the vehicle and of one or more parts of it”…” whereas the invention uses the plenoptic camera to achieve information about the geometrical properties and characteristics of the vehicle or of at least one part of the vehicle and its spatial position”…” determination of distances and angles needed to support the parameter calculation for determining the spatial position of the vehicle or of one or more parts of it. The used light field imaging systems are designed to process a light field image of the vehicle or of the at least one part of the vehicle. Light sensitive elements are positioned in predetermined locations and designated to determine distinct incidents angles of light coming from the vehicle. Processing means , especially digital processing means are operatively connected to the light-sensitive elements to determine from the output data of the light- sensitive elements the spatial location of the vehicle or of the at least one part of the vehicle.”; US Pub No. 2011/0233881 A1 by Baeumchen et al- para 0003, para 0009, para 0051; US Pub No. 2004/0167718 A1 by Hoenes et al.- para 0001 “Distance-measuring systems in motor vehicles for supporting parking, in which sensors for measuring distance are arranged on the vehicle, are already known”; para 0002 “ detecting device and the obstacle are taken into account when determining the distance between the vehicle and the obstacle. … calculate in the extension of those parts mounted on the vehicle which jut out beyond the remaining vehicle contour. … these may be vehicle parts themselves, add-ons to the vehicle, but also parts merely being transported by the vehicle. … parts able to be mounted on the vehicle which do not belong to the vehicle body as such, and which are either arranged as removable mass-produced components on the vehicle that are later mounted as additional equipment on the vehicle, or which are optionally secured in a removable fashion on or in the vehicle for a temporary time. …here are components which are not necessary for the driving function of the vehicle and which in general offer an additional use to the user that is not necessary for all users of the vehicle, at least not for the entire usage duration. Examples for this are, for instance, a spare wheel additionally positioned on the back of the vehicle, a bicycle likewise situated on the back of the vehicle, particularly in the case of buses or minibuses, a trailer hitch, a load jutting out beyond the vehicle contour such as a special luggage rack or a piece of luggage protruding out of the trunk or a tailgate, or a projecting plate such as a license plate or a warning plate.”
With respect to conventional technical process of using computer technology to collect data, analyze data and output the result.
See Electric Power Group
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 12-20 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 11. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward determining cost for repair- business practice. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward identifying damage vehicle parts and determining total cost- a business practice. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward repair complexity includes price schedule for treating/repairing the vehicle- business practice. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward repair information include indication of treatment facilities- business practice. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward ranking treatment/repair facilities- business practice. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward selecting a treatment/repair facility- business practice. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward receiving plurality of indications of treatment/repair facilities, assigning each of the facilities to one of the treatment complexity levels and ranking treatment facilities – business practice. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward duration data for repair, prices schedule for treating damaged vehicles, location data or quality rating for suppliers- business practice. Dependent claim 20 is directed toward transmitting data, receiving a request from an owner to transmit funds and transmitting the funds- business practice.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 11. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 12-20 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
US Patent No. 11,669,911 B1 by Brandmaier et al- L21; US Patent No. 9,028,312 B1 by Wei et al – spatial sensor L24; US Patent No. 11,227,330 B2 by Stewart – parts; US Patent No. 11,756,131 B1 by Genser et al- L37- assessing damage using images; US Pub No. 2014/0316825 A1 by van Dijk et al – repair costs estimate-L37; US Pub No. 2015/0039397 A1 by Fuchs – L48 ; US Pub No. 20170011470 A1 by King
With respect to sensors attached to vehicle measuring distance between vehicle parts, the examiner provides
WO 2014/048831 A1 by Kassouf et al “provide a method and a system for inspection, maintenance or repair of vehicles, especially motor vehicles or at least one part of the vehicle in which the determination of the spatial position of a vehicle, especially of a motor vehicle or of one or more parts of the vehicle is enabled by using a simplified imaging system”…” capture of multiple images of the vehicle, especially of a motor vehicle or of one or more parts of the vehicle simultaneously from a light field imaging system and enables determination of distance and angle measurements needed to support the parameter calculation for determining the spatial position of the vehicle and of one or more parts of it”…” whereas the invention uses the plenoptic camera to achieve information about the geometrical properties and characteristics of the vehicle or of at least one part of the vehicle and its spatial position”…” determination of distances and angles needed to support the parameter calculation for determining the spatial position of the vehicle or of one or more parts of it. The used light field imaging systems are designed to process a light field image of the vehicle or of the at least one part of the vehicle. Light sensitive elements are positioned in predetermined locations and designated to determine distinct incidents angles of light coming from the vehicle. Processing means , especially digital processing means are operatively connected to the light-sensitive elements to determine from the output data of the light- sensitive elements the spatial location of the vehicle or of the at least one part of the vehicle.”; US Pub No. 2011/0233881 A1 by Baeumchen et al- para 0003, para 0009, para 0051; US Pub No. 2004/0167718 A1 by Hoenes et al.- para 0001 “Distance-measuring systems in motor vehicles for supporting parking, in which sensors for measuring distance are arranged on the vehicle, are already known”; para 0002 “ detecting device and the obstacle are taken into account when determining the distance between the vehicle and the obstacle. … calculate in the extension of those parts mounted on the vehicle which jut out beyond the remaining vehicle contour. … these may be vehicle parts themselves, add-ons to the vehicle, but also parts merely being transported by the vehicle. … parts able to be mounted on the vehicle which do not belong to the vehicle body as such, and which are either arranged as removable mass-produced components on the vehicle that are later mounted as additional equipment on the vehicle, or which are optionally secured in a removable fashion on or in the vehicle for a temporary time. …here are components which are not necessary for the driving function of the vehicle and which in general offer an additional use to the user that is not necessary for all users of the vehicle, at least not for the entire usage duration. Examples for this are, for instance, a spare wheel additionally positioned on the back of the vehicle, a bicycle likewise situated on the back of the vehicle, particularly in the case of buses or minibuses, a trailer hitch, a load jutting out beyond the vehicle contour such as a special luggage rack or a piece of luggage protruding out of the trunk or a tailgate, or a projecting plate such as a license plate or a warning plate.”
Thales Visionix v US (2000) which provides evidence that placing sensor at different positions on a moving platform in order to provide more accurate sensor data is an application of technology and configuration of sensors is known in the art.
With respect to conventional technical process of using computer technology to collect data, analyze data and output the result.
Electric Power Group
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2014/0278572 A1 by Mullen et al (Mullen) and further in view of DE 102008002549 A1 by Kaerner et al herein the translation as annotated by the examiner with paragraph numbers (Kaerner)
In reference to Claim 1:
Mullen teaches:
(Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for automatically streamlining a vehicle claims process, the method executed by one or more processors programmed to perform the method ((Mullen) in at least Abstract, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors in a client device, sensor data, wherein the sensor data includes a received signal … of a signal received by a computing device and transmitted from a spatial sensor, … wherein the spatial sensor is attached to a first part of the vehicle, the computing device is attached to a second part of the vehicle, ((Mullen) in at least FIG. 2-3, para 0040 wherein the prior art teaches sensors coupled to the vehicle; para 0045, para 0049 wherein the prior art teaches onboard computing device of coupled to sensors such as an accelerometer (spatial sensor) coupled to the vehicle to measure acceleration along several axes including direction and velocity; para 0051, para 0061 wherein the prior art teaches computing device (e.g. speedometer, accelerometer, compass,)divided into front end and back end components permanently or removably attached to a vehicle interfaces with various sensors coupled to the vehicle), para 0073, para 0077 wherein the prior art teaches establishing dimensional space the vehicle moves through); …
determining, by one or more processors in the client device, crash information by analyzing the sensor data, … ((Mullen) in at least para 0004, para 0011-0012, para 0038, para 0070-0073, para 0077 wherein the prior art teaches establishing dimensional space the vehicle moves through; para 0080-0082);
transmitting, by the one or more processors in the client device and to a server device [server1], an indication of the detected crash for the vehicle and the crash information ((Mullen) in at least para 0049, para 0051, para 0063-0065, para 0083);
in response to receiving the indication of the detected crash for the vehicle, determining, by one or more processors in a server device [server2], an extent of a damage of at least one of the first part or the second part …((Mullen) in at least abstract; FIG. 2; para 0002, para 0004, para 0047, para 0051, para 0066);
determining, by the one or more processors in the server device, a treatment complexity level representing a degree of difficulty associated with treating the vehicle based on the extent of the damage… ((Mullen) in at least FIG. 5; para 0049-0050, para 0052-0054, para 0056, para 0077-0082 wherein the prior art teaches routines include vehicle acceleration, velocity and acceleration that coordinates with GPS used with application where the applications include vehicle treatment application) ;
receiving, by the one or more processors in the client device, crash repair information from the server device [server1], the crash repair information including the treatment complexity level ((Mullen) in at least FIG. 5; para 0052-0054, para 0056-0059); and
causing, by the one or more processors in the client device, the crash repair information to be displayed on the client device ((Mullen) in at least para 0006, para 0047, para 0055 wherein the prior art teaches transmitting to owner information associated treatment of vehicle via text, email, fax, etc.; para 0059-0060, para 0063, para 0084, para 0097)
Mullen does not explicitly teach:
sensor data includes a received signal strength …and a greater received signal strength of the signal is indicative of a shorter distance between the first part and the second part;
detecting, by one or more processors in the client device, a change of the received signal strength of the signal by analyzing the sensor data;
detecting, by one or more processors in the client device, a crash involving the vehicle by detecting the change of the received signal strength of the signal;
determining, by the one or more processors in the client device, crash information by analyzing sensor data, including determining a change of a distance between the first part and the second part by analyzing the change of the received signal strength of the signal, wherein the crash information includes the change of the distance between the first part and the second part;
….an extent of a damage of at least one of the first part or the second part based on the change of the distance between the first part or the second part;
Kaerner teaches:
receiving, by one or more processors in a client device, sensor data, wherein the sensor data includes a received signal strength of a signal received by a computing device and transmitted from a spatial sensors wherein the spatial sensor is attached to a first part of the vehicle, the computing device is attached to a second part of the vehicle, and a greater received signal strength [amplitude] of the signal is indicative of a shorter distance between the first part and the second part ((Kaerner) in at least para 0001 wherein the prior art teaches sensors configured to determine speed and measurement of distance with optical sensor; para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches it is known for sensors to be installed at different locations in the vehicle; para 0018, para 0021, para 0023, para 0026, para 0039)
detecting, by one or more processors in the client device, a change of the received signal strength [amplitude] of the signal by analyzing the sensor data ((Kaerner) in at least para 0005, para 0009, para 0018, para 0023, para 0029, para 0039);
detecting, by one or more processors in the client device, a crash involving the vehicle by detecting the change of the received signal strength [amplitude] of the signal ((Kaerner) in at least para 0004-0005, para 0009, para 0014, para 0018, para 0022-0024, para 0029, para 0033, para 0039);
determining, by one or more processors in the client device, crash information by analyzing the sensor data, including determining a change of a distance between the first part and the second part by analyzing the change of the received signal strength [amplitude] of the signal, wherein the crash information includes the change of the distance between the first part and the second part; ((Kaerner) in at least para 0001-0007, para 0017-0018, para 0022, para 0027-0030, para 0032-0035, para 0039)
determining, by the one or more processors in the server device, a treatment complexity level representing a degree of difficulty associated with treating the vehicle based on the extent of the damage an extent of a damage of at least one of the first part or the second part based on the change of the distance between the first part or the second particle ((Kaerner) in at least FIG. 8; para 0001-0007, para 0017-0018, para 0022-0024, para 0026-0039)
Both Mullen and Kaerner teach applying a plurality of sensor that gather data that can be used to determine vehicle damage. Kaerner teaches the motivation that it is well known in the art for sensors to be placed on different parts of a vehicle (see para 0001). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic sensor coupled to vehicle parts for measuring data related to vehicle impacts and damage of Mullen to include sensor on at least two parts as taught by Kaerner since . Kaerner teaches the motivation that it is well known in the art for sensors to be placed on different parts of a vehicle (see para 0001).
With respect to the limitation “determining a change of distance between a first vehicle part and the second vehicle part of the vehicle“, both Mullen and Kaerner teach applying a plurality of sensor that gather data that can be used to determine vehicle damage. Kaerner teaches the motivation of applying sensor to measure the change in the gap of parts during impact of a vehicle in order to evaluate the variations in change and geometry of the vehicle after impact of different structural elements (hard and soft components) within the vehicle where the shock of impact created due to an impact speed and proportional impact signal in order to determine in the course of the collision what parts previously separated are pushed together as different barrier types will behave differently as a rigid barrier will have a different value gap movement behavior related to parts being pushed in but a resilient barrier will begin to deform at a different rate with a more aggressive deformation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the evaluation of sensor data related to collisions of Mullen to include determining change of distance between first and second vehicle parts of Kaerner since Kaerner teaches the motivation of applying sensor to measure the change in the gap of parts during impact of a vehicle in order to evaluate the variations in change and geometry of the vehicle after impact of different structural elements (hard and soft components) within the vehicle where the shock of impact created due to an impact speed and proportional impact signal in order to determine in the course of the collision what parts previously separated are pushed together as different barrier types will behave differently as a rigid barrier will have a different value gap movement behavior related to parts being pushed in but a resilient barrier will begin to deform at a different rate with a more aggressive deformation.
With respect to the limitation “…determining…[damage] level representing a degree of [damage of the] vehicle based on the change of the distance between the first vehicle part and the second vehicle part of the vehicle” both Mullen and Kaerner teach analyzing vehicle collision sensor data that can be used to determine the extent of vehicle damage. Kaerner teaches the motivation that there is a need in determining the level of impact for different vehicle structure types as more rigid parts of a vehicle versus flexible parts of a vehicle have different degrees of compression where the different vehicle parts are pushed together in response to the proportions of speed, acceleration related to impact levels measured. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the evaluation of sensor data related to collisions of Mullen to include determining damage level representing degrees of damage based on changes in distances between first and second vehicle parts of Kaerner since Kaerner teaches the motivation that there is a need in determining the level of impact for different vehicle structure types as more rigid parts of a vehicle versus flexible parts of a vehicle have different degrees of compression where the different vehicle parts are pushed together in response to the proportions of speed, acceleration related to impact levels measured.
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
automatically determining, by the one or more processors in the server device, a total cost associated with treating the vehicle, wherein the received crash repair information further includes the total cost associated with treating the vehicle ((Wilson) in at least para 0005-0006, para 0038, para 0052-0053) .
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein determining the total cost associated with treating the vehicle includes:
automatically identifying one or more damaged vehicle parts within the vehicle based upon the crash information ((Wilson) in at least abstract; para 0004, para 0006, para 0009, para 0019, para 0038, para 0047, para 0051-0053); and
determining the total cost based upon a cost associated with each of the one or more damaged vehicle parts ((Mullen) in at least FIG. 5; para 0038, para 0052-0054, para 0056-0060).
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
(Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the treatment complexity level further includes
a price schedule for treating the vehicle ((Mullen) in at least para 0005-0006, para 0038, para 0052; Claim 1)
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5
(Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors in the server device, one or more treatment facilities capable of treating the vehicle based on the treatment complexity level, wherein the received crash repair information further includes an indication of the one or more treatment facilities. ((Mullen) in at least para 0005, para 0037-0038, para 0044)
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6
(Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein determining the one or more treatment facilities capable of treating the vehicle further includes
ranking the one or more treatment facilities based on one or more treatment facility evaluation characteristics, wherein the indication of the one or more treatment facilities further includes an indication of the determined ranking ((Mullen) in at least para 0005 wherein the prior art teaches formulating repair process when complexity level is less than a damage threshold to select a repair treatment facility and when more than a damaged threshold level select salvage treatment facility; para 0013, para 0037, para 0044 wherein the prior art teaches identifying which facilities can perform which level of vehicle damage (minor, medium, major and complexity treatment level) and selecting the service center capable of performing the requisite treatment)
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7.
(Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
automatically selecting, by the one or more processors in the server device, a treatment facility for treating the vehicle based on the treatment complexity level, wherein the received crash repair information further includes an indication of the selected treatment facility. ((Wilson) in at least FIG. 7; para 0004-0005, para 0013-0014, para 0057)
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8
(Currently amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein automatically selecting a treatment facility for treating the vehicle further comprises:
receiving, at the one or more processors in the server device, a plurality of indications of treatment facilities ((Mullen) in at least para 0044, para 0047, para 0052, para 0054, para 0056-0058);
assigning, by the one or more processors in the server device, each of the plurality of indications of treatment facilities to one of a plurality of treatment complexity levels((Mullen) in at least para 0044, para 0047, para 0052, para 0054, para 0056-0058); and
for each of the plurality of treatment complexity levels, ranking, by the one or more processors in the server device, each of the plurality of indications of treatment facilities assigned to the treatment complexity level based upon one or more treatment facility evaluation characteristics. ((Mullen) in at least para 0054)
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9.
(Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the one or more treatment facility evaluation characteristics includes at least one of:
duration data for the treatment facility, a treatment facility quality rating, a treatment facility availability, a price schedule for treating damaged vehicles, treatment facility location data, or a quality rating for one or more suppliers used by the treatment facility. ((Mullen) in at least para 0013, para 0053-0054, para 0056-0058)
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 11.
The functions of computer system claim 11 correspond to the steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 20 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include the computer system ((Mullen) in at least para 0005-0006, para 0018-0019) to perform the operation that correspond to claim 1 include the structure comprising:
a communication network ((Mullen) in at least para 0034, para 0062);
a client device disposed within the vehicle having a memory and one or more processors ((Mullen) in at least FIG. 9; para 0005, para 0076);
to perform operations corresponding to the steps of claim 1
Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12.
The functions of system claim 12 corresponds to steps of method claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13.
The functions of system claim 13 corresponds to steps of method claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14.
The functions of system claim 14 corresponds to steps of method claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 4
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15.
The functions of system claim 15 corresponds to steps of method claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 5.
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16.
The functions of system claim 16 corresponds to steps of method claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 6.
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17.
The functions of system claim 17 corresponds to steps of method claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 7.
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18.
The functions of system claim 18 corresponds to steps of method claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 8.
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19.
The functions of system claim 19 corresponds to steps of method claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 of claim 1 above, Claim(s) 20 of claim 11 above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2014/0278572 A1 by Mullen et al (Mullen) in view of DE 102008002549 A1 by Kaerner et al herein the translation as annotated by the examiner with paragraph numbers (Kaerner) and further in view of US Patent No. 9,019,092 B1 by Brandmaier et al. (Brandmaier)
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10.
(Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: …
transmitting, by the one or more processors in the server device, information associated with transporting the vehicle to a selected treatment facility ((Mullen) in at least para 0037, para 0044)
Mullen does not explicitly teach:
in response to receiving a request from an owner of the vehicle to transmit funds, transmitting, by the one or more processors in the server device, the funds based upon a determined cost of repair to an account for the owner of the vehicle
Brandmaier teaches:
in response to receiving a request from an owner of the vehicle to transmit funds, transmitting, by the one or more processors in the server device, the funds based upon a determined cost of repair to an account for the owner of the vehicle ((Brandmaier) in at least Col 21 lines 52-67).
Both Mullen and Brandmaier are directed toward accessing vehicle damage and determining the cost to offer for repairs. Brandmaier teaches the motivation once a user accepts a settlement offer for repairing the damaged vehicle, the bank account of the user transfer funds in order to pay for the repairing of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the process for repairing vehicles of Mullen to include payment for the repairs as taught by Brandmaier since Brandmaier teaches the motivation once a user accepts a settlement offer for repairing the damaged vehicle, the bank account of the user transfer funds in order to pay for the repairing of the vehicle.
In reference to Claim 20:
The combination of Mullen and Kaerner discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Mullen further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20.
The functions of system claim 20 corresponds to steps of method claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2011/0175843 A1 by Bachfischer et al; WO 2015096997 A1 by Rohrl et al; DE 102015120839 by Shibata et al.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 MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695