DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on October 27, 2025. Amendments to claims 11-21 have been entered. Claims 11-30 are pending and have been examined. The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art was already discussed in the Office action mailed on July 29, 2025 and hence not repeated here. The objections to the claims, rejections and the response to arguments are stated below.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “A computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining an image depicting a geographic location;
extracting features representative of physical attributes of the geographic location from the image using a feature extractor;
identifying a component depicted in the image based on the extracted features;
using an attribute model, determining an attribute value for an attribute associated with the identified component based on the image;
using an environmental evaluation model, determining an evaluation metric for the geographic location based on the attribute value for a hazard of interest;
determining a predicted attribute value for the attribute based on a classification of the attribute as a variable attribute; and
using the environmental evaluation model, determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value, wherein the predicted evaluation metric is a vulnerability score representative of a vulnerability of the geographic location to the hazard of interest”. Recitation of a computer-implemented method in the preamble does not imply that all the steps of the claim are performed by a computer/processor. It is not clear if these steps of the claim are performed manually and or by a computer processor. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Similar ambiguities are present in the dependent claims 12-20 also. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value, wherein the predicted evaluation metric is a vulnerability score representative of a vulnerability of the geographic location to the hazard of interest, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of certain of methods of organizing human activity such as a Fundamental economic practice and also commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, claim 11 is directed to a process.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A computer implemented method comprising:
determining an image depicting a geographic location;
extracting features representative of physical attributes of the geographic location from the image using a feature extractor;
identifying a component depicted in the image based on the extracted features;
using an attribute model, determining an attribute value for an attribute associated with the identified component based on the image;
using an environmental evaluation model, determining an evaluation metric for the geographic location based on the attribute value for a hazard of interest;
determining a predicted attribute value for the attribute based on a classification of the attribute as a variable attribute; and
using the environmental evaluation model, determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value, wherein the predicted evaluation metric is a vulnerability score representative of a vulnerability of the geographic location to the hazard of interest” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice and also commercial or legal interactions including resolution of agreements.
Determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value (in the context of an evaluation metric associated with a hazard, such as wildfire, flood, hail, wind, tornadoes, or other hazards) is estimating and mitigating risk (See at least Specification [0013] – [0029]) which is a fundamental economic practice such as estimating risk. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification. “Using an attribute model, determining an attribute value for an attribute associated with the identified component based on the image; using an environmental evaluation model, determining an evaluation metric for the geographic location based on the attribute value; determining a predicted attribute value for the attribute based on a classification of the attribute as a variable attribute; and using the environmental evaluation model, determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value, wherein the predicted evaluation metric is a vulnerability score representative of a vulnerability of the geographic location to the hazard of interest”, considered collectively, is a form of fulfilling agreements (between the parties concerned, for example between property buyer and seller. Specification [0015] The resultant information (e.g., evaluation metric, etc.) can be used as an input in one or more property models, such as an automated valuation model, a property loss model, and/or any other suitable model; be provided to an endpoint (e.g., shown to a property buyer). Claims are interpreted in light of the Specification.
That is, other than, a feature extractor, an attribute model, and an environmental evaluation model, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. In claim 21, other than, a computing device, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, a feature extractor, an attribute model, and an environmental evaluation model nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. The feature extractor, an attribute model, and an environmental evaluation model are broadly interpreted to correspond to suitably programmed computer components for performing the corresponding functions. Similarly, the computing device, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor are suitably programmed computer components for performing the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a computing device, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, a feature extractor, an attribute model, and an environmental evaluation model to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-5 and descriptions in at least paragraphs [0017] – [0018], [0033], [0071] – [0078], [00122] – [00125] reveals that a system comprising a memory and one or more generic processors suitably programmed is used execute the claimed steps. The feature extractor, an attribute model, and an environmental evaluation model are broadly interpreted to correspond to generic software suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The processor and memory (not explicitly recited in claim 11), feature extractor, an attribute model, and an environmental evaluation model are in all the steps recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements (recited in the claim) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 11 is not patent eligible. Independent claim 21 is also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale.
Dependent claims 12-20, and 22-30 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claims 12 and 22, the steps “further comprising:
identifying a second component depicted in the image; and
determining a second attribute value for a second attribute associated with the identified second component based on the image, wherein the second attribute value is classified as an invariable attribute;
wherein the evaluation metric is further determined based on the second attribute value”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe further the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 13 and 23, the steps “wherein the environmental evaluation model comprises a trained machine learning model” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe further the intermediate steps of the underlying process. The additional element of a trained machine learning model is broadly interpreted to correspond to generic software suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. The additional element of a trained machine learning model performs its traditional function recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In claims 14 and 24, the steps “wherein the environmental evaluation model is trained using a set of training geographic locations within a region previously exposed to an environmental hazard” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe further the environmental evaluation model used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 15 and 25, the steps “wherein identifying the component comprises identifying pixels of the image corresponding to the component, wherein the attribute value is determined based on the identified pixels” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe further the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 16 and 26, the steps “wherein determining the evaluation metric for the geographic location comprises:
predicting a continuous evaluation metric based on the attribute value using the environmental evaluation model; and
converting the continuous evaluation metric to a discrete evaluation metric using a classifier, wherein the classifier is trained such that discrete evaluation metrics corresponding to a set of training geographic locations have a predetermined distribution” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe further the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 17 and 27, the steps “wherein the evaluation metric for the geographic location is not determined based on historical environmental hazard data associated with the geographic location.” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe further the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 18 and 28, the steps “wherein the component comprises a roof, wherein the attribute comprises roof complexity” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe further the components in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 19 and 29, the steps “wherein the component comprises vegetation, wherein the attribute comprises vegetation coverage” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe further the components in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 20 and 30, the steps “further comprising identifying a set of geographic locations based on the predicted evaluation metric for each geographic location in the set of geographic locations” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe further the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
5. The response to the objections to the claims have already been addressed in the objections itself, and hence no further explanation is deemed necessary. Hence, the objections to the claims are maintained by the examiner.
In response to Applicants arguments on pages 7-14 of the Applicant’s remarks that the claims are patent-eligible under 35 USC 101 when considered under MPEP 2106, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The fact that the claims are Patent-Ineligible when considered under the MPEP 2106 has already been addressed in the rejection and hence not all the details of the rejection are repeated here.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong one:
(Response to Paragraphs 1 and 2 on pages 10-12 of the remarks)
The claim(s) recite(s) a method of determining a determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value, wherein the predicted evaluation metric is a vulnerability score representative of a vulnerability of the geographic location to the hazard of interest, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of certain of methods of organizing human activity such as a Fundamental economic practice and also commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed in the rejection.
Determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value (in the context of an evaluation metric associated with a hazard, such as wildfire, flood, hail, wind, tornadoes, or other hazards) is estimating and mitigating risk (See at least Specification [0013] – [0029]) which is a fundamental economic practice such as estimating risk. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification. “Using an attribute model, determining an attribute value for an attribute associated with the identified component based on the image; using an environmental evaluation model, determining an evaluation metric for the geographic location based on the attribute value; determining a predicted attribute value for the attribute based on a classification of the attribute as a variable attribute; and using the environmental evaluation model, determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value, wherein the predicted evaluation metric is a vulnerability score representative of a vulnerability of the geographic location to the hazard of interest”, considered collectively, is a form of fulfilling agreements (between the parties concerned, for example between property buyer and seller. Specification [0015] The resultant information (e.g., evaluation metric, etc.) can be used as an input in one or more property models, such as an automated valuation model, a property loss model, and/or any other suitable model; be provided to an endpoint (e.g., shown to a property buyer). Claims are interpreted in light of the Specification. Hence, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Also contrary to Applicant’s assertion that the Office action oversimplifies the subject matter claimed by describing the claims at a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims, the Examiner would like to point out that all limitations of all claims have been fully considered (in the rejections). The overall abstract idea of a method of determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value, wherein the predicted evaluation metric is a vulnerability score representative of a vulnerability of the geographic location to the hazard of interest is based on all limitations of all claims taken in combination. Abstract ideas can be characterized at different levels of abstraction. (See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”)). The additional elements in the claims are suitably programmed generic computer components, that are used as tools in their ordinary capacity, to apply the abstract idea. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong two:
(Response to Paragraph 3 on pages 12-14 of the remarks)
According to MPEP 2106, limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The additional elements in the claims are a computing device, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, a feature extractor, an attribute model, and an environmental evaluation model to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-5 and descriptions in at least paragraphs [0017] – [0018], [0033], [0071] – [0078], [00122] – [00125] reveals that a system comprising a memory and one or more generic processors suitably programmed is used execute the claimed steps. The feature extractor, an attribute model, and an environmental evaluation model are broadly interpreted to correspond to generic software suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The processor and memory (not explicitly recited in claim 11), feature extractor, an attribute model, and an environmental evaluation model are in all the steps recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The alleged advantages such as “evaluating the vulnerability of a property on a property-by-property basis and predicting an updated vulnerability depending on proposed mitigation actions ….. predicting a degree of vulnerability to a hazard specific to a geographic region, and simulating the impact of mitigation actions to the vulnerability” are due to an improvement in the abstract idea of a method of determining a predicted evaluation metric based on the predicted attribute value, wherein the predicted evaluation metric is a vulnerability score representative of a vulnerability of the geographic location to the hazard of interest. An improvement in abstract idea is still abstract (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea). The additional elements (identified in the rejection) are generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. Hence, Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2B:
As discussed in the rejection, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements (identified in the rejection) to perform the claimed steps, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible. Therefore, the Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments referencing Ex-parte Desjardins have been considered but are not persuasive.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Kossyk; Ingo et al. (US Pub. 2024/0273366 A1) discloses systems and methods for automatically detecting a change in a feature. For example, a system includes a memory and a processor configured to analyze a change associated with a feature over a period of time using a plurality of remotely sensed time series images. Upon execution, the system would receive a plurality of remotely sensed time series images, extract a feature from the plurality of remotely sensed time series images, generate at least two time series feature vectors based on the feature, where the at least two time series feature vectors correspond to the feature at two different times, create a neural network model configured to predict a change in the feature at a specified time, and determine, using the neural network model, the change in the feature at a specified time based on a change between the at least two time series feature vectors.
7. 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
February 14, 2026