Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on March 28, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 2, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 15-20 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 1-14 are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 15 (representative of independent claim(s) 1 and 8) recites the following steps:
A method for generating a resource assessment metric using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing, the method comprising:
receiving resource data,
receiving device data,
determining an ownership chain of the resource, wherein determining the ownership chain comprises comparing the resource token;
determining a user identification of a user associated with the resource;
generating, an assessment metric associated with the resource, wherein generating the assessment metric comprises comparing the resource data and the device data
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) appraising the vehicle’s value properly and identifying the chain of ownership (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 15 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 and 8 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
a resource token database;
using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module,
a resource database.
a resource token database;
a user token
a user token database;
A system for generating a resource assessment metric using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of:
A computer program product for generating a resource assessment metric using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing an apparatus to:
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “wherein the resource data comprises a resource token, geometric information, background information, and conditional information associated with a resource” and/ or "wherein the device data comprises geolocation data and gyroscopic data associated with a user device;" and/or " by comparing a user token associated with the user with a user token database;" serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “wherein the resource data comprises a resource token, geometric information, background information, and conditional information associated with a resource” and/ or "wherein the device data comprises geolocation data and gyroscopic data associated with a user device;" and/or " by comparing a user token associated with the user with a user token database;" serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05( g, h )).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 18 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 5-7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
via the user device
a resource token model
biometric information
a facial recognition module.
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 include, the recited additional element(s) of claims “using the geolocation data, the gyroscopic data, a microphone, and a camera associated with the user device” that serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05( g, h )).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Southin (2023/0162243) in view of Balakrishnan et al. (2021/0124919) and Tussy (2018/0181737).
Claims 1, 8 and 15
Southin teaches a method for generating a resource assessment metric using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing, the method comprising:
A system for generating a resource assessment metric using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of (Southin [0042]):
A computer program product for generating a resource assessment metric using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing an apparatus to (Southin [0042]):
receive resource data, wherein the resource data comprises See “recognition engine to process the captured images and metadata to detect defects of the vehicle [background information; conditional information] and compute vehicle metrics [geometric information],
receive device data, wherein the device data comprises geolocation data and gyroscopic data associated with a user device (Southin [0136]). See at least “The system 100 generates and provides a link (for display at an interface application 130) that can be opened on any mobile device… a sequence of mobile optimized vehicle capture modules 132 (at interface application 130) that utilizes the device camera, global position [gyroscopic data] and microphone, along with other input devices. See [0172][Figure 31] “At 3108, the interface connects to a camera at a device and at 3110 retrieves the location of the device.”
generate, using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, an assessment metric associated with the resource, wherein generating the assessment metric comprises comparing the resource data and the device data with a resource database (Southin [112]). See The system 100 can implement different machine learning methods for determining the condition, estimated reconditioning costs and estimated market value for a vehicle by participating as an autonomous third-party validation source between the seller and the buyer of a motor vehicle.”
Southin does not explicitly disclose verifying extracted information against a database, Balakrishnan teaches:
a resource token (Balakrishnan [0011])
determine an ownership chain of the resource, wherein determining the ownership chain comprises comparing the resource token with a resource token database (Balakrishnan [0011][0135]; See[0011] for title. See also [0135] “This may include content such as a person's name, address, date of birth, driver's license number, or other information that is expected to be unique to a particular subject document. The extracted information may be checked or compared to information available in a database or data record as part of verifying the information, and hence the subject document (as suggested by database checks 168).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of vehicle appraising, as taught by Southin the method of verifying extracted information against a database, as taught by Balakrishnan, to reduce human error in document authentications (Balakrishnan [0004]).
Neither reference discloses determine user identification. Tussy teaches:
determine a user identification of a user associated with the resource by comparing a user token associated with the user with a user token database (Tussy [0075]); See at least “The facial recognition module 366 may process the image data [token] to generate facial data (biometric information) and perform a compare function in relation to other facial data to determine a facial match as part of an identify determination.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of vehicle appraising, as taught by Southin and Balakrishnan the method of verifying user identification, as taught by Tussy , to address a need for reliable, cost-effective, and convenient method to authenticate users attempting to log in to, for example, a user account (Tussy [0004]).
Claims 2, 9 and 16
Modified Southin, Balakrishnan and Tussy disclose the limitations above. Modified Southin further teaches:
wherein executing the instructions further causes the processing device to transmit, to the generative AI module, resource functionality data, wherein the resource functionality data comprises a resource functionality artifact representing the resource’s functionality (Southin [0003]). See at least “a recognition engine to process the captured images and metadata to detect defects of the vehicle and compute vehicle metrics,” See also [0112] “The system 100 captures and computes metrics for the condition of any vehicle and processes the specified damages (indicated in damage data for the vehicle) through its grading process or bands.”
Claims 3, 10 and 17
Modified Southin, Balakrishnan and Tussy disclose the limitations above. Modified Southin further teaches:
wherein the resource functionality data further comprises using the geolocation data, the gyroscopic data, a microphone, and a camera associated with the user device to capture the resource functionality artifact (Southin [0136]). See at least “The system 100 generates and provides a link (for display at an interface application 130) that can be opened on any mobile device… a sequence of mobile optimized vehicle capture modules 132 (at interface application 130) that utilizes the device camera, global position [gyroscopic data] and microphone, along with other input devices. See [0172][Figure 31] “At 3108, the interface connects to a camera at a device and at 3110 retrieves the location of the device.”
Claims 4, 11 and 18
Modified Southin, Balakrishnan and Tussy disclose the limitations above. Modified Southin further teaches:
wherein generating the assessment metric further comprises determining, based on the resource functionality data, an appraisal value of the resource (Southin [0002][0003]). See [0002] “Embodiments described herein relate to systems and processes for evaluating a vehicle for the purpose of estimating any cosmetic or mechanical defects or other visually and audibly noticeable repairs” See also [0003] “there is provided a system for vehicle appraisals using image processing.”
Claims 5, 12 and 19
Modified Southin, Balakrishnan and Tussy disclose the limitations above. Modified Balakrishnan further teaches:
wherein determining the ownership chain further comprises: receiving, via the user device, at least two images of the resource token (Balakrishnan [0323]); See at least “Document processing services 512 may include one or more functions or operations for the processing of document images as part of authenticating or verifying a subject document.”
creating a resource token model, wherein the resource token model comprises a representation of the resource token including a seal associated with the resource token (Balakrishnan [0091][0092]); See at least “Process the image of the subject document to identify and extract one or more invariable attributes of the subject document…[0092] where the invariable attributes may include labels, titles, headers, field names, logos, holograms, seals…”
determining the resource token is valid by comparing the resource token model with the resource token database (Balakrishnan [0135]). See at least “The extracted information may be checked or compared to information available in a database or data record as part of verifying the information, and hence the subject document (as suggested by database checks 168).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of vehicle appraising, as taught by Southin the method of verifying extracted information against a database, as taught by Balakrishnan, to reduce human error in document authentications (Balakrishnan [0004]).
Claims 6, 13 and 20
Modified Southin, Balakrishnan and Tussy disclose the limitations above. Modified Tussy further teaches:
wherein determining the user identification further comprises: receiving biometric information associated with the user; and determining the biometric information is valid via a facial recognition module (Tussy [0049]). See “Using image processing and image recognition algorithms, the server 120 processes the person's biometric information, such as facial data, and compares the biometric information with biometric data stored in the database 124 to determine the likelihood of a match. In other embodiments, the image processing and comparison is done on the mobile device 112, and data sent to the server indicates a result of the comparison.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of vehicle appraising, as taught by Southin and Balakrishnan, the use of biometric facial recognition as taught by Tussy, to reduce title incidents of fraud (Tussy [0004].
Claims 7 and 14
Modified Southin, Balakrishnan and Tussy disclose the limitations above. Modified Southin further teaches:
wherein the resource comprises a vehicle (Southin [0002]). See “Embodiments described herein relate to systems and processes for evaluating a vehicle for the purpose of estimating any cosmetic or mechanical defects or other visually and audibly noticeable repairs.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights