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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on October 27, 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 have been previously canceled.
Claims 21 and 31 were amended.
Claim(s) 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention discloses an enhanced claims processing system that automatically processes insurance claims through specific telematics-based impact analysis and iteratively-improving machine learning damage assessment. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not disclose an enhanced claims processing system that automatically processes insurance claims. Applicant’s claimed invention estimates repair costs based on receiving data from a vehicle that has been damaged, which is different from automatically processing an insurance claim. The iterative feedback mechanism and the continual-learning approach of the claimed invention are not in themselves technical solutions because these features are foundational to every machine learning application. Applicant’s claimed invention is distinguishable from the claimed invention in Desjardins because the Desjardin invention does not merely offer a model that uses iterative feedback and features continual learning. The Desjardin invention goes further by improving upon the process by which the machine learning model uses iterative feedback to continually learn. Applicant’s claimed invention does not do this. While Applicant’s claimed invention may improve damage assessments through continual learning, it does not offer an improvement to the learning process itself. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 21-40 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 21 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 31. Claim 21 recites the following limitations:
[one or more processors; and]
[one or more storage devices that store instruction code executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:]
receiving, [by the computing system and from a telematics device of a vehicle,] an impact indication associated with the vehicle, [wherein the telematics device is in communication with one or more sensors of the vehicle,] and the impact indication includes kinematic data sensed [by the one or more sensors] proximate a time of an impact associated with the impact indication;
determining, [by machine learning logic of the computing system and based on the impact indication,] one or more potentially damaged portions of the vehicle, wherein the machine learning logic is trained on historical impact data to correlate historical kinematic data with specific vehicle component damage patterns stored in a damage correlation database, and wherein the machine learning logic is iteratively updated based on feedback received from one or more repair service providers indicating one or more actual repair costs and damaged areas or components identified during vehicle repair, such that subsequent determination of one or more potentially damaged portions and associated repair cost estimates converge toward actual repair findings over time;
causing, [by the computing system and on a user device in communication with the computing system,] display of a user interface that facilitates selection of one or more of the potentially damaged portions of the vehicle;
receiving, [by the computing system and via the user interface,] a damaged portion selection;
causing, [by the computing system,] the user interface to display a series of images associated with the damaged portion selection and that depict increasing degrees of damage to a reference item and at a portion associated with damaged portion selection, wherein the series of images are automatically selected from a pre-categorized database based on vehicle make, model, year, and the potentially damaged portions determined by the machine learning algorithms;
receiving, [by the computing system,] a selection of one or more images of the series of images; and
determining, [by the computing system,] repair information associated with the selected one or more images of the series of images, wherein the repair information facilitates repair of the damage to the vehicle and includes automatically generated repair cost estimates based on repair cost data associated with each selected image.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic principle or practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The one or more processors, machine learning logic, and one or more storage devices in Claim 21 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 31 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of one or more processors and one or more storage devices. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 21 and 31 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 21 and 31 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 22-30 and 32-40 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 21 and 31 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 22-30 and 32-40 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 22-30 and 32-40 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 21-40 are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Utke (US 20190073641), Wilson II (US 20150332407), and Patt (US 20230115771) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Utke teaches a system and method for analyzing images and videos of damaged vehicles to determine damaged vehicle parts and vehicle asymmetries. Patt teaches external data source integration for claim processing. Wilson II teaches a system and method for enhanced claims settlement. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of “determining, by the computing system and based on the impact indication, one or more potentially damaged portions of the vehicle; causing, by the computing system and on a user device in communication with the computing system, display of a user interface that facilitates selection of one or more of the potentially damaged portions of the vehicle; receiving, by the computing system and via the user interface, a damaged portion selection; causing, by the computing system, the user interface to display a series of images associated with the damaged portion selection and that depict increasing degrees of damage to a reference item and at a portion associated with damaged portion selection; receiving, by the computing system, a selection of one or more images of the series of images; and determining, by the computing system, repair information associated with the selected one or more images of the series of images, wherein the repair information facilitates repair of the damage to the vehicle”, as described by the allowed claims. For these reasons, claims 21-40 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Patt (US 2023/0115771) discloses external data source integration for claim processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 pm.
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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-272-6771. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
November 26, 2025
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693