DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/23/2024 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 10/20/2025.
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
Claims 3, 4, 11 and 12 are canceled.
Claim 21-24 are added.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10 and 13-20 are amended.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10 and 13-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10 and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
While the Applicant specifies in claims 1, 9 and 16 that “applying an algorithm to compare the messaging response data from the particular client device to electronic records associated with the service provider; based on comparing the messaging response data to the electronic record, determining, by applying algorithm a quantity of new electronic records to be generated at a locality in the defined proximity of the environmental event”, there is no written content as to how or what specific algorithm is performed (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example) in order to compare messaging response data from the at least one client device to stored data of electronic record such that a result of a number of electronic records to be generated at a locality in the proximity of an event can be determined by application of the algorithm. The examiner noted that Specification paragraph 0041 mentioned that in some embodiments the algorithm may be “an intelligent or smart algorithm such as a neural network”. However, no discussion is provided that regarding how generic neural network algorithm may achieve the desired specific comparison and application. As such, the disclosure does not objectively demonstrate that the applicant actually invented—was in possession of—the claimed subject matter.
While the Applicant specifies in claims 5 and 19 that “wherein the algorithm applies a model that comprises a neural network with a set of nodes that comprise a first set of nodes trained on electronic record data, and a second set of nodes trained on data indicative of a policyholder associated with a client device will be submitting an electronic record.”, there is no written content as to how or what specific neural network model is performed (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example) in order to compare messaging response data from the at least one client device to stored data of electronic record such that a result of a number of electronic records to be generated at a locality in the proximity of an event can be determined by application of the neural network. The examiner noted that Specification paragraph 0041 tangentially mentioned that “a first set of nodes is trained on the content of inputted past claim (record) submission data, and another set of nodes is trained on inputs of attribute data that relate to the likelihood that a policyholder in a vicinity of weather or other events will submit a claim”. However, no discussion is provided that regarding how the generic neural network algorithm may trained with the aforementioned data to achieve the desired specific comparison and application. As such, the disclosure does not objectively demonstrate that the applicant actually invented—was in possession of—the claimed subject matter.
The written description requirement can be satisfied if the particular steps, i.e., algorithm, necessary to perform the claimed function were “described in the specification.” In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods, Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34, 25 USPQ2d 1241, (Fed. Cir. 1992).
As such, claims 1, 2, 5-10 and 13-24 are rejected as failing the written description requirement.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a method, a system and a manufacture, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for facilitating an electronic record in response to an event, comprising:
receiving, by a server of a service provider, weather data associated with a geographic region, and sensor data from a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in the geographic region;
determining, by the server and based at least in part on the weather data and the sensor data, an occurrence of a weather event in the geographic region;
responsive to determining the occurrence of the weather event, and based on profile data associated with a plurality of users, determining, by the server, an identifier of a particular client device associated with a user having an address within a defined proximity of the weather event;
causing activation, by the server, of an application on the particular client device, the application generating a user interface on a display of the particular client device, wherein the user interface includes a request for messaging response data associated with the weather event;
obtaining, by the server and from the particular client device, messaging response data from the at least one client device associated with the event;
determining, by the server and based on the messaging response data, , whether the particular client device will generate an electronic record associated with the weather event;
applying, by the server, an algorithm to compare the messaging response data from the particular client device to electronic records associated with the service provider;
based on comparing of the messaging response data to the electronic records, determining, by applying algorithm, a quantity of new electronic records to be generated at a locality in the defined proximity of the weather event; and
based at least on the quantity, determining, by the server, at least one service from a plurality of services to be allocated to assist in facilitating a processing of the news electronic records generated at the locality.
Claim 9 recites:
A system, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive environmental data associated with a geographic region, and sensor data from a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in the geographic region;
determining based at least in part on the environmental data and the sensor data, an occurrence of a environmental event in the geographic region;
responsive to determining the occurrence of the environmental event, and based on profile data associated with a plurality users, determine an identifier of a particular client device associated with a user having an address within a defined proximity of the environmental event;
cause activation of an application on the particular client device, the application generating a user interface on a display of the particular client device, wherein the user interface includes a request for messaging response data associated with the weather event;
obtain, from the particular client device, the messaging response data from the at least one client device associated with the environmental event;
determine based on the messaging response data, , whether the particular client device will generate an electronic record associated with the weather event;
applying an algorithm to compare the messaging response data from the particular client device to electronic records associated with the service provider;
based on comparing of the messaging response data to the electronic records, determining, by applying algorithm, a quantity of new electronic records to be generated at a locality in the defined proximity of the environmental event; and
based at least on the quantity, determine at least one service from a plurality of services to be allocated to assist in facilitating a processing of the news electronic records generated at the locality.
Claim 16 recites:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by a processor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a server of a service provider, weather data associated with a geographic region, and sensor data from a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in the geographic region;
determining, by the server and based at least in part on the weather data and the sensor data, an occurrence of a weather event in the geographic region;
responsive to determining the occurrence of the weather event, and based on profile data associated with a plurality of users, determining, by the server, an identifier of a particular client device associated with a user having an address within a defined proximity of the weather event;
causing activation of an application on the particular client device, the application generating a user interface on a display of the particular client device, wherein the user interface includes a request for messaging response data associated with the weather event;
obtaining, by the server and from the particular client device, the messaging response data from the at least one client device associated with the event;
determining, based on the messaging response data, , whether the particular client device will generate an electronic record associated with the weather event;
applying an algorithm to compare the messaging response data from the particular client device to electronic records associated with the service provider;
based on comparing of the messaging response data to the electronic records, determining, by applying algorithm, a quantity of new electronic records to be generated at a locality in the defined proximity of the weather event; and
based at least on the quantity, determining at least one service from a plurality of services to be allocated to assist in facilitating a processing of the news electronic records generated at the locality.
Claims 2, 10 and 17-18 recite:
wherein obtaining the messaging response data comprises using a generative messaging application to solicit the messaging response data, wherein the generative messaging application is a chatbot and wherein using the generative messaging application comprises initiating a dialogue via the chatbot.
Claims 5 and 19 recite:
wherein applying the algorithm comprises enabling a classification engine that includes a neural network modeled with plurality of layers of nodes that comprise a first set of nodes trained on historical electronic record data, and a second set of nodes trained on data indicative of a policyholder associated with a client device submitting an electronic record.
Claims 6 and 13 recite:
determining a location for setting up a mobile resource center based on the address.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 recite:
generating, by the server, analytical data related to the weather/environmental event, based on output from the algorithm; and displaying, by the server, the analytical data in a graphical user interface for presenting an allocation of resources available.
Claims 8 and 15 recite:
receiving, by the server and from a data source, additional event-related data; and displaying, within the graphical user interface, dynamic changes in demand responsive to a number of electronic record submissions and locality of electronic record submissions for changing the allocation of resources available.
Claim 21 recites:
wherein causing the activation of the application comprises: generating an executable signal; and sending the executable signal to the particular client device, wherein the executable signal causes the particular client device to activate the application.
Claim 22 recites:
facilitating, by the server, allocation of the at least one service, wherein facilitating the allocation comprises determining a quantity and skills of personnel for on-the-ground operations.
Claim 23 recites:
wherein the user interface is a first user interface, the display is a first display, and the particular client device is a first client device, the method further comprising: based on receiving the messaging response data and receiving permission from the user, causing activation, by the server, of the application on a second client device, the application generating a second user interface on a second display of the second client device, wherein the second user interface includes additional prompts in a series of prompts comprising the request.
Claim 24 recites:
wherein the request comprises one or more prompts, the method further comprising: receiving, by the server, additional weather data or additional sensor data; and causing a real-time modification to the one or more prompts based at least in part on the additional weather data or additional sensors data.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers facilitating insurance claim related response (Also see Specification paragraph 0005). Facilitating insurance claim related response is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “a processor”, “a server” or “processing engine of the server” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “receiving, by a server of a service provider, weather data associated with a geographic region, and sensor data from a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in the geographic region” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving weather/environmental data and sensor data;
the limitation “determining, by the server and based at least in part on the weather data and the sensor data, an occurrence of a weather event in the geographic region” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining an occurrence of the event;
the limitation “responsive to determining the occurrence of the weather event, and based on profile data associated with a plurality of users, determining, by the server, an identifier of a particular client device associated with a user having an address within a defined proximity of the weather event” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining at least one client device is within the proximity of the event;
the limitation “causing activation of an application on the particular client device, the application generating a user interface on a display of the particular client device, wherein the user interface includes a request for messaging response data associated with the weather event” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of requesting messaging response from the client;
the limitation “obtaining, by the server and from the particular client device, the messaging response data from the at least one client device associated with the event” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of obtaining the response;
the limitation “determining, based on the messaging response data, whether the particular client device will generate an electronic record associated with the weather event” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining whether the at least one client will generate a record associated with the event;
the limitation “applying an algorithm to compare the messaging response data from the particular client device to electronic records associated with the service provider” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of applying algorithm to compare messaging response data to the records associated with the service provider;
the limitation “based on comparing of the messaging response data to the electronic records, determining, by applying algorithm, a quantity of new electronic records to be generated at a locality in the defined proximity of the weather event” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the quantity of new records to be generated at the locality;
the limitation “based at least on the quantity, determining at least one service from a plurality of services to be allocated to assist in facilitating a processing of the news electronic records generated at the locality” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining at least one service to be allocated to assist in facilitating the processing of the records at the locality associated with the event;
the limitation “receiving, from a plurality of data sources, event-related data” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving event-related data;
the limitation “wherein obtaining the messaging response data comprises using a generative messaging application to solicit the messaging response data, wherein the generative messaging application is a chatbot and wherein using the generative messaging application comprises initiating a dialogue via the chatbot” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of using existing technology (generically recited generative messaging application) to solicit the messaging response data or to initiate a dialogue;
the limitation “wherein applying the algorithm comprises enabling a classification engine that includes a neural network modeled with plurality of layers of nodes that comprise a first set of nodes trained on historical electronic record data, and a second set of nodes trained on data indicative of a policyholder associated with a client device submitting an electronic record” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of using a trained neural network model (generically recited to be trained without specifics) to analyze data;
the limitation “determining a location for setting up a mobile resource center based on the address” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the location for setting up the mobile resource center;
the limitation “generating, by the server, analytical data related to the weather/environmental event, based on output from the algorithm; and displaying, by the server, the analytical data in a graphical user interface for presenting an allocation of resources available” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating analytical data related to the event and presenting the data;
the limitation “receiving, by the server and from a data source, additional event-related data; and displaying, within the graphical user interface, dynamic changes in demand responsive to a number of electronic record submissions and locality of electronic record submissions for changing the allocation of resources available” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving additional event-related data and presenting the updated event-related data;
the limitation “wherein causing the activation of the application comprises: generating an executable signal; and sending the executable signal to the particular client device, wherein the executable signal causes the particular client device to activate the application” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of requesting message response from the client.
the limitation “facilitating, by the server, allocation of the at least one service, wherein facilitating the allocation comprises determining a quantity and skills of personnel for on-the-ground operations” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of facilitating allocation of the at least one service by determining the quantity and skills of personnel for on-the-ground operations.
the limitation “wherein the user interface is a first user interface, the display is a first display, and the particular client device is a first client device, the method further comprising: based on receiving the messaging response data and receiving permission from the user, causing activation, by the server, of the application on a second client device, the application generating a second user interface on a second display of the second client device, wherein the second user interface includes additional prompts in a series of prompts comprising the request” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of requesting messaging response from a second client based on receiving messaging response data and permission from the first client.
the limitation “wherein the request comprises one or more prompts, the method further comprising: receiving, by the server, additional weather data or additional sensor data; and causing a real-time modification to the one or more prompts based at least in part on the additional weather data or additional sensors data” encompasses no more than generically invoking a server / processor / processing engine to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving additional event-related data and presenting the updated prompts based at least in part on the additional data.
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “non-transitory storage medium” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “cause activation of an application on the particular client device, the application generating a user interface on a display of the particular client device” and “causing the activation of the application comprises: generating an executable signal; and sending the executable signal to the … device, wherein the executable signal causes the … device to activate the application” are generically recited to perform input/output steps (requesting message response data) described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the application or the interface accomplish it.
The additional element(s) of “generative messaging application” and “chatbot” are generically recited to perform insurance event communication described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the application or chatbot accomplish it.
The additional element(s) of “algorithm”, “applying the algorithm”, “enabling a classification engine that includes neural network modeled with a plurality of layers of nodes that comprise a first set of nodes trained on …” are generically invoked to perform the analyze data without providing specific technological details regarding how the algorithm or the neural network accomplish it.
The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “device” or “electronic” are appended to abstract elements such as “client” and “record” respectively, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
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, the additional element of using a processor to facilitate insurance claim related response amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The recited ordered combination of additional elements includes mere instructions to apply the exception to a generic computing environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5-10 and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the amended claim moot the rejection under 35 USC 112a, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure nonetheless lacks adequate written description that would objectively demonstrate the inventor has possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See the rejection updated in view of the amendment.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the amended claims integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant alleged that the claims integrate the Judicial Exception into practical application by improving the technical fields of generative AI and electronic claim processing. The examiner noted that the generative AI is only nominally invoked in the claims to solicitate message response data and initiate dialogue without any technological detail. The “automatically initiate a conversation” is described by the desired result without any technological description describing how the conversation is initiated. It should be noted that mere usage of a technology do not provide improvement to the technology. As to the alleged improvement to electronic claim processing, the alleged improvement of “automatically pinpoints and assess particular need” and “ determine a location for setting up a mobile resource center” are not shown be related to technological aspect of electric claim processing. An improved Judicial Exception that can automatically pinpoint and assess need and determine location for mobile resource center does not provide technological improvement simply by appending the word “automatically” to the improvement of the Judicial Exception. As such the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the amended claims amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the response above, the alleged improvement is not shown be improvement to technology. Alice Corp.’s improvement to settlement risk mitigation is not an improvement to electronic transaction despite the transaction is conducted electronically. Similarly, an improved Judicial Exception that can “determine, via communication with a geographically -germane user device, what type of services will be needed” does not provide technological improvement simply by appending the word “automatically” to the improvement of the Judicial Exception. As such the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 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 CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
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 at 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693