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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on September 25th, 2023 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on April 7th, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
3. Application 18/474,117 was filed on September 25th, 2023 which is a continuation of 17/670,253 filed on February 11th, 2022 which is a continuation of 15/176,426 filed on June 8th, 2016.
Examiner Request
4. The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant argues that the amended claims recite “technical improvements such as ‘the sensor data comprising at least one of (i) collision data for the vehicle from an impact sensor disposed in the vehicle or (ii) sudden acceleration, braking, and/or swerving data from a driving sensor disposed in the vehicle.’ In some examples, this sensor data, including "collision data for the vehicle from an impact sensor disposed in the vehicle" and/or "sudden acceleration, braking, and/or swerving data from a driving sensor disposed in the vehicle", can be used to determine damage information associated with the vehicle, which can then be used to: (i) identify the approved repair facility of the one or more approved repair facilities for repairing the vehicle, (ii) calculate a standard amount to reimburse the identified approved repair facility for repairing the vehicle, and (iii) calculate an amount of time for repair of the vehicle.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. The asserted “technical improvements,: including the recitation of specific types of sensor data (e.g., collision data sudden acceleration, braking, and/or swerving data), do not amount to a technological improvement to a computer or other technology. Instead, the claims merely provide additional details about the type of information being collected and analyzed in order to perform the abstract idea (collecting vehicle-related data, analyzing that data to determine damage, and identifying an appropriate repair facility and reimbursement amount). The inclusion of particular sensor data does not improve the operation of the telematics device, the sensors, or the server, but rather describes the content of the information used to carry out the business process of determining vehicle repair logistics. Accordingly, these amendments do not transform the nature of the claim into one directed to a technical solution, but rather further define the data inputs of the abstract idea itself, which remains directed to a business improvement rather than a technological improvement.
6. Applicant argues that “Independent Claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (under step 2B), and is therefore patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In particular, Applicant respectfully submits that “Independent Claim 1 includes specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, and is therefore patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Applicant further argues that “it is not well-understood, routine and conventional in the field to calculate ‘an amount of time for repair of the vehicle based on the damage information and the location of the identified approved repair facility’. Furthermore, it is also not well-understood, routine and conventional in the field to make this calculation based on sensor data that includes ‘collision data for the vehicle from an impact sensor disposed in the vehicle’ and/or ‘sudden acceleration, braking, and/or swerving data from a driving sensor disposed in the vehicle.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not assert that the claimed additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore Applicant’s arguments on that point are not persuasive. Rather, the rejection determined that the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea of streamlining vehicle repair including collecting information, determining damage to a vehicle, identifying a repair facility for the vehicle, and calculating a cost to repair the vehicle and time of repair the vehicle. The claimed calculation step simply represents a commercial or legal interaction and/or a mental evaluation of gathered data, that is using received information to estimate repair time, rather than an improvement in the operation of any computer, telematics device, or sensor. Similarly, the recited “sensor data” merely represents the type of information gathered for processing and does not constitute an additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. The claim remains focused on the abstract idea of gathering and analyzing information to facilitate business-related vehicle-repair decisions, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the features recited in the claim, including the calculation of repair time and reimbursement amount, do not represent an improvement to computer or sensor technology and therefore do not render the claim patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites streamlining vehicle repair including collecting information, determining damage to a vehicle, identifying a repair facility for the vehicle, and calculating a cost to repair the vehicle and time of repair the vehicle. Claims 1, 7 and 14 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) recites:
[…]
receiving, […], sensor data regarding at least one of an operating state of the vehicle and driving behavior, the sensor data comprising at least one of (i) collision data for the vehicle […] or (ii) sudden acceleration, braking, and/or swerving data;
receiving, from […] the user, one or more images of the vehicle;
based on at least one of the sensor data ane the one or more images of the vehicle, determining damage information associated with the vehicle;
determining, from the sensor data received from the telematics device, GPS coordinates associated with a geographical location of the vehicle;
based on the determined GPS coordinates and the damage information, identifying, […], the approved repair facility of the one or more approved repair facilities for repairing the vehicle, wherein repair facilities have undergone a quality review to identify approved repair facilities;
calculating, […], a standard amount to reimburse the identified approved repair facility for repairing the vehicle based on the damage information, on the location of the identified approved repair facility, and on data indicating costs of previous repairs to other vehicles;
transmitting, […] to the […] the identified approved repair facility, the standard amount to […] the identified approved repair facility; and
calculating, […], an amount of time for repair of the vehicle based on the damage information and the location of the identified approved repair facility.
These limitations as drafted are process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a server that comprises hardware including one or more processors and memory (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a mobile device and a computing device, (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a telematics device that comprises a global positioning system (GPS) receiver (Claims 1, 7 and 14), one or more sensors, an impact sensor or driving sensor disposed in the vehicle (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a network (Claim 7), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Claim 14) the claimed invention amounts to commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)), then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 1, 7, and 14 recite an abstract idea.
Alternately, as drafted, the limitations recite a process that, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for
recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a server that comprises hardware including one or more processors and memory (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a mobile device and a computing device, (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a telematics device that comprises a global positioning system (GPS) receiver (Claims 1, 7 and 14), one or more sensors, an impact sensor or a driving sensor (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a network (Claim 7), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Claim 14), nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer components recited above, this claim encompasses receiving vehicle data, determining the damage and location of the vehicle, identifying a repair facility, calculating a reimbursement for repair to the repair facility and transmitting that amount, and calculating a time of repair, described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, Claims 1, 7, and 14 recite an abstract idea.
The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 7, and 14 recite the additional elements of a server that comprises hardware including one or more processors and memory (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a mobile device and a computing device, (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a telematics device that comprises a global positioning system (GPS) receiver (Claims 1, 7 and 14), one or more sensors, an impact sensor or a driving sensor (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a network (Claim 7), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Claim 14). These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computers performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. 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. Claims 1, 7, and 14 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).
Claims 1, 7, and 14 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 elements of a server that comprises hardware including one or more processors and memory (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a mobile device and a computing device, (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a telematics device that comprises a global positioning system (GPS) receiver (Claims 1, 7 and 14), one or more sensors, an impact sensor or a driving sensor (Claims 1, 7 and 14), a network (Claim 7), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Claim 14) to perform the noted steps 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 (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even when considered separately and as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 7, and 14 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claims 3-6, 9-13, and 16-20 are similarly rejected because they merely further narrow the same abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, and 14 as discussed above and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. Claims 3, 10, and 17 merely describes transmitting a length of time for which the individual may need a rental car. Claims 4, 11, and 18 merely describes transmitting an incentive to the identified approved repair facility to complete repair of the vehicle within a predetermined amount of time. Claims 5, 12, and 19 merely describes determining a type of insurance coverage. Claims 6, 13, and 20 merely describes adjusting the standard amount for future repairs based on identifying a difference between the standard amount and the received actual cost for repair. Claims 9 and 16 merely describes the quality review. Therefore claims 3-6, 9-13, and 16-20 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Dependent claims 2, 8, and 15 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims 1, 7, and 14 as discussed above. In addition, they recite the additional elements of a computing device. This additional element is again recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computers performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore claims 2, 8, and 15 are patent ineligible.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20160239921 to Bray which discloses the server entity processes the information received from the sensor devices after a damage event occurs and determines an estimate of the damage to the item and each of the individual parts that were damaged. The server delivers the estimate to an insurance entity for approval and/or to a client device along with a list of repair entities. In addition, the sensor devices are able to provide continuous information with respect to the current state of an item, including when no significant damage event has occurred.
US-20140081675 to Ives which discloses assessing a likelihood of total loss of insured property (e.g., an insured automobile) and/or assessing an expected severity of damage to insured property. In some embodiments, information, such as information relating to insured property (e.g., age of a vehicle) and/or claim information (e.g., information relating to circumstances of an auto accident), may be used in determining a total loss score and/or damage severity score, without requiring a professional estimate or appraisal of damage to insured property.
US-20150213556 to Haller et al. which discloses determining or predicting re-inspection of a vehicle insurance claim are disclosed. The probability of an occurrence of a re-inspection of a claim (e.g., a re-inspection score) is determined by using a predictive re-inspection model generated based on a data analysis of historical claim data from a plurality of sources. The re-inspection score may be determined prior to a repair facility initially reviewing the claim or viewing the damage to the vehicle.
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 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 TARIQ HAFIZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-5350. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights