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 April 8, 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20, 29, 30, 39, and 40 have been canceled.
Claims 21 and 31 were amended.
Claim(s) 21-28, 31-38, and 41-44 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because a claim that is more specific and technically defined than the abstract idea it is alleged to recite is, by definition, not directed to that abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument is false because an abstract idea does not lose its abstract nature by becoming more specific and technically defined. Specificity is simply not a criterion for determining whether a claimed invention is abstract. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the specific implementation recited in the amended claims is not foundational or generic to every machine learning application. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention, as a whole, does not reflect a technical improvement or integrate an alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention does not reflect a technical improvement because the additional limitations of one or more processors and one or more storage devices were recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Such a recitation does not solve any technical problem or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Any improvements resulting from the claimed invention are tied to the abstract idea, and an improved abstract idea is still abstract. The specific combination of elements highlighted by Applicant are a reference to the specificity of the claimed invention’s application of artificial intelligence technology. The specificity of a claimed invention’s application in itself does not transform the subject matter of the claimed invention into patent eligible subject matter. Furthermore, the novelty of an abstract idea is not a consideration for patent eligibility analysis. For these reasons, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because a specific technical implementation that produces a concrete technical improvement through a specific technical mechanism satisfies the requirement for patent eligibility. Examiner disagrees. The specificity of a claimed invention’s technical implication does not satisfy any requirement for patent eligibility. Any improved results produced by the claimed invention are a product of the abstract idea through its implementation by generic computer components. As previously stated, an improved abstract idea is nonetheless abstract. Unlike the system in Ex parte Desjardins, Applicant’s claimed invention does not improve or even change how the machine learning system operates. It merely directs machine learning technology to a specific application. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea because the claimed invention recited an abstract idea and the additional limitations did not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examiner did not fail to account for the specifics recited within the claimed invention. The specific technical features recited therein were a part of the abstract idea, and the specificity of the abstract idea had no effect on its abstract nature. When read as a whole, the claimed invention falls square within the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because it recited a fundamental economic practice of assigning value to a service (i.e. generating repair cost estimates). Unlike the claimed invention in Enfish and McRO, Applicant’s claimed invention does not improve any computer functionality. Any improvement focuses on claims processing and damage assessment, which is abstract. The specificity of the technological process mentioned by Applicant resides in the abstract idea, and an abstract idea cannot become patent eligible based on its specificity. For these reasons, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reflecting a specific improvement to a technology or technical field. Examiner disagrees. As previously stated, any improvement in Applicant’s claimed invention resides in the recitation of the abstract idea. The implementation of the abstract idea, even if found to be as improved and specific as Applicant argued, does not make the claimed invention patent eligible because the additional limitations of computer components were merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment. Such limitations are not indicative of patent eligible subject matter. Applicant’s claimed invention is easily distinguishable from the claimed invention in BASCOM because Applicant has not demonstrated or argued that an inventive concept exists in the arrangement of known elements in the claimed invention at issue. Applicant argued that Examiner’s finding that the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of elements shows that the combination in Applicant’s claimed invention provides an inventive concept. In response, Examiner notes that the lack of prior art that teaches or suggests the combination merely provides evidence of novelty and non-obviousness. It is not an indication of patent eligibility because novelty and non-obviousness are not considerations taken into account when determining patent eligibility. For these reasons, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims apply the alleged abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claims. Examiner disagrees. The computing system comprising processors and storage devices are not particular machines. The sensors used in the computing system, the telematics device, and the databases all operate in a generic fashion. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims effect a specific technical improvement in the field of automated damage assessment. Examiner disagrees. As previously stated, any improvement lies in the abstract idea, and an improved abstract idea is still abstract. The specificity of any improvement in the abstract idea also has no effect on its abstract nature. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims include additional elements amounting to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. The additional elements do no amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because new dependent claims 41, 42, 43, and 44 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner disagrees. New dependent claims 41-44 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter because the claims 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 41-44 also 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, 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) 21-28, 31-38, and 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 21-28, 31-38, and 41-44 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 communicatively coupled to one or more sensors of the vehicle,] and the impact indication includes acceleration data, angular velocity data, and impact force measurements automatically captured [by the one or more sensors] proximate a time of an impact when a predetermined threshold value is exceeded;
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 the acceleration data, angular velocity data, and impact force measurements with specific vehicle component damage patterns stored in a damage correlation database, wherein the damage correlation database is updatable with actual repair cost data received as feedback from one or more repair service providers, and wherein the machine learning logic is configured to be iteratively updated based on the actual repair cost data and to use the damage correlation database as updated based on the feedback to support determinations of potentially damaged portions and associated repair cost estimates in response to subsequently received impact indications;
causing, [by the computing system and on a user device communicatively coupled to the computing system,] display of a user interface that facilitates selection of the one or more 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 one or more potentially damaged portions determined by the machine learning logic;
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 an automatically generated repair cost estimate 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 22-28, 32-38, and 41-44 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 22-28, 32-38, and 41-44 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 22-28, 32-38, and 41-44 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 21-28, 31-38, and 41-44 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 of a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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
June 21, 2026
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights