Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 27 May 2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending. Examiner withdraws the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter. However, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to double patenting is maintained. The rejections are as stated below.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11836806; claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11164258; claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10360638; claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9996886; and claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 9659331. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite means or steps that are substantially the same and that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 essentially repeat all the features listed in the Patents listed above, with the exception of removing several claim limitations. Therefore, the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20, additionally claims “and third vehicle sensor data collected by one or more shock sensors associated with the vehicle and that indicates an impact associated with the accident of the vehicle”.
However, Carlson (US 20120296562 A1) discloses collision avoidance system for vehicles where vehicle sensor data collected by one or more shock sensors associated with the vehicle and that indicates an impact associated with the accident of the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0120].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of Carlson into the disclosure of Hanson et al. in order to develop a more efficient and accurate collision avoidance system.
Furthermore, claims 1-9 and 11-20 add the new limitation of “determine, based on a predictive payment model that uses the first, second, and third vehicle sensor data in combination to identify one or more loss attributes associated with the accident, a predicted cost of repair of the vehicle, without requiring physical inspection of the vehicle by a claims adjuster, wherein the predictive payment model is based on the one or more”.
However, COLLINS et al. (US 20090265193 A1) disclose methods and systems for automated property insurance inspection include a remote inspection device having video inspection equipment capable of providing video images of property for use by an insurance company (see at least Paragraph [0047], “… Images from the imaging device 225 can be used to assess the damage, without the need to send an inspector to the property location at all ...”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of COLLINS et al. into the disclosure of Hanson et al. in order to develop a more efficient and accurate system by using a robot to remotely inspect a damaged property.
For these reasons, claims 1-9 and 11-20 of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11836806; claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11164258; claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10360638; claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9996886; and claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 9659331, but they are not patently distinct.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendment/arguments filed 27 May 2026 have been fully considered. Applicants’ amendments and arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 are deemed to be persuasive and the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter is withdrawn. However, the rejection directed to double patenting is maintained.
The additional elements in the claim provide meaningful limitations that transform an abstract idea into patent eligible (more accurate/reliable remote loss characterization via multi-sensor fusion that cannot be obtained from any single sensor alone). The claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim as a whole effect an improvement to another technology or technical field. These limitations in combination provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These limitations, when taken as an ordered combination, provide unconventional steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular application (the ordered combination of specific sensor types, fusion into a combined loss attribute and the application of multipliers). For these reasons, claims 1-9 and 11-20 recite patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
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 Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights