Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 December 2025, has been entered.
The following is a Non-Final office action on the merits in response to the communications filed on 23 December 2025. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending. The rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter and double patenting of claims 1-9 and 11-20 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) disclose 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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps determining a predicted cost of repair of a vehicle for insurance claims.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of receiving vehicle data that comprises information about a vehicle; determining, based on a predictive payment model that uses the first, second, and third vehicle 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 loss attributes associated with one or more multipliers, and wherein the predictive payment model is further based on the first, second, and second third vehicle data; and sending a payment to a repair facility, wherein the payment is based on the predicted cost of repair, and wherein the payment is sent before a claim associated with the payment is made.
The claimed system simply describes series of steps for determining a predicted cost of repair of a vehicle for insurance claims. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover performances and concepts relating to fundamental economic principles or practices that enhance processing and managing of insurance claims and therefore, fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity category of the USPTO’s Guidance. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are managing transactions and/or activities that fall within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using a processor, a computer readable medium, a communications network, first vehicle sensor data generated by a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor, second vehicle sensor data collected by an accelerometer that indicates a speed of the vehicle at a time of an accident and an amount of acceleration and/or deceleration prior to the accident of the vehicle, 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 to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-14 and 16-20 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic server to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendment/arguments filed 23 December 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained. The non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is maintained, since Applicant requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claimed invention is deemed allowable.
Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments from the previous office actions.
As mentioned previously, the proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The concept is still directed to determining a predicted cost of repair of a vehicle for insurance claims, which does not make it less abstract. The specific content of information or data, even when limited to a particular context does not change its character as information or data and therefore, remains within the realm of the abstract idea.
The claims generally link the abstract idea and the gathering of information and determining an output based on analyzing the gathered information. The claims apply the abstract idea on the computer system 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues in substance that the claims are directed to “a specific sensor fusion system that uses multiple vehicle sensors in a particular combination to identify accident characteristics and determine repair costs without requiring physical inspection by claims adjusters. This is not an abstract business practice but a specific technological implementation that improves the functioning of insurance claim processing systems”. “Independent claims now explicitly recite that the predictive payment model "uses the first, second, and third vehicle sensor data in combination to identify one or more loss attributes associated with the accident." This language makes clear that the claims require sensor data fusion--the integration of data from multiple heterogeneous sensors (GPS, accelerometer, shock sensors) to produce information that cannot be obtained from any individual sensor alone. Sensor fusion is a recognized technical field in computer science and engineering”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem/internet-centric problem.
The sensors in the present application are used for data gathering, the determining of a predicted cost of repair of a vehicle is performed by the processor based on a payment model. Nowhere in the claims or the specification a mention of “sensor data fusion”. Furthermore, “determine repair costs without requiring physical inspection by claims adjusters” is basically automating a manual process, it is not a problem in computers/sensors technology, this is not a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
Examiner notes that the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem (see remarks, page 3, “the effect of reducing costs to both parties”. “This can reduce the cost and time involved in getting a vehicle repair, as it may remove the actual physical inspection, which is well-known to be difficult to schedule, time-consuming, and expensive (for both the insurer and the insured via premiums). See Applicant’s Specification at Para. [0003]”.
The focus of the claims in the present case is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem.
The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency/accuracy inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s citation of Bascom is non-persuasive because the claims at issue in Bascom are readily distinguishable over the instant claims. In BASCOM v. AT&T: The claimed invention is able to provide individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communication networks. …recite a system for filtering Internet content. The claimed filtering system is located on a remote ISP server that associates each network account with (1) one or more filtering schemes and (2) at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, thereby allowing individual network accounts to customize the filtering of Internet traffic associated with the account. For example, one filtering scheme could be “a word-screening type filtering scheme” and one set of filtering elements (from a plurality of sets) could be a “master list [] of disallowed words or phrases together with [an] individual [list of] words, phrases or rules.” Id. at 4:30-35.
Applicant’s citation of DDR is non-persuasive because the claims at issue in DDR are readily distinguishable over the instant claims. In the case of DDR Holdings "E-Commerce Outsourcing System/Generating a Composite Web Page", the claims were directed to automatically generating and transmitting a web page in response to activation of a link using data identified with a source web page having certain visually perceptible elements.
As indicated by the courts in CONTENT EXTRACTION v. WELLS FARGO BANK. The courts stated that “…CET’s claims merely recite the use of this existing scanning and processing technology to recognize and store data from specific data fields such as amounts, addresses, and dates. See id. There is no “inventive concept” in CET’s use of a generic scanner and computer to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. At most, CET’s claims attempt to limit the abstract idea of recognizing and storing information from hard copy documents using a scanner and a computer to a particular technological environment. Such a limitation has been held insufficient to save a claim in this context. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715– 16 (Fed Cir. 2014); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355.
Moreover, Applicant’s citation of McRo is non-persuasive because the claims at issue in McRo are readily distinguishable over the instant claims.
In McRO, the Federal Circuit held the claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. In McRO, timing phonemes in milliseconds represents both the problem being solved and the inventive solution. On the other hand, timing in the instant application represents nothing more than a sequence of events that occur time – a feature common to most process/method patent applications. The timing is not critical to accomplishing the process. For example, a few second delay in a network transmission will not materially affect the outcome of the ordered combination of method steps. Timing is not a problem introduced by the technology itself or arising in the realm of computer networks that the instant application seeks to solve...”
Applicant’s citation of Thales is non-persuasive because the claims at issue in Thales are readily distinguishable over the instant claims. The claims specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. The mathematical equations are a consequence of the arrangement of the sensors and the unconventional choice of reference frame in order to calculate position and orientation. Far from claiming the equations themselves, the claims seek to protect only the application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as disclosed. As such, these claims are not directed to an abstract idea and thus the claims survive Alice step one.
In contrast, the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem and are thus incomparable to the claims at issue in BASCOM, DDR, McRO and Thales. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. -see MPEP 2106.05(f). The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed and displayed does not make it less abstract. The claimed use of computer elements recited at a high level of generality is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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.
The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible.
In the instant case, the claims’ invocation of processors, networks, sensors and databases does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, sensor or database components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed management of rehypothecated collateral allocations “on a set of generic computer components”. Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6–7.
Examiner submits that under the current 35 USC 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶: “We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete”. Indeed, in this in instant case, the limitations simply narrow or limit the abstract idea without providing anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
COLLINS et al., (US 20090265193 A1) discloses “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. The images may be used for expediting claim processing, inspecting damage in hazardous or hard to reach places, loss avoidance/risk control, fraud detection, detecting changes in risk profile, underwriting, rating, and quoting on new accounts and renewals, and prospecting new customers. The inspections may be performed on the exterior or interior of the property, and may be performed periodically, on-demand or continuously.”.
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