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
This action is in response to the application filed on 5/4/2026
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for prior priority dates including:
This application is a CON of 17/500,731 10/13/2021 PAT 12,014,425.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(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).
All claims are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent 12,014,425. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to systems and methods with a damage assessment interface for display on the computing device of the user and a physics engine to generate a simulation of the vehicular incident.
Regarding claim 1, the language within this claim can be found within claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,425.
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.
All claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 20 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 11 (herein called Additional Independent Claims). The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of:
A computing system comprising: a network communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: receive, over one or more networks, a claim trigger from a computing device of a user, the claim trigger indicating that a vehicular incident involving a vehicle of the user has occurred; communicate, over the one or more networks, with the computing device to obtain device information from one or more components of the user's computing device, the device information including a sensor information obtained from one or more sensors of the computing device at a time that includes a moment of the vehicle incident, and location information obtained from a location receiver of the vehicle; provide, over the one or more networks, a damage assessment interface for display on the computing device of the user, the damage assessment interface comprising an interactive virtual representation of the vehicle that enables the user to indicate damage on the vehicle based on the vehicular incident; based on the user indicating damage on the vehicle via the interactive virtual representation, map one or more portions of the virtual representation indicated by the user as damaged to one or more vehicle parts based at least in part on a make and model of the vehicle; provide, over the one or more networks, a map interface that prompts the user to provide inputs indicating a location at which the vehicular incident occurred and at least one of a direction of travel, a right-of-way, a route, a trajectory, or a speed of the vehicle on the map interface; and based at least in part on the selected one or more portions of the virtual representation by the user the inputs provided by the user on the map interface, and the device information, initiate a physics engine to generate a simulation of the vehicular incident wherein the physics engine generates the simulation based at least on (i) a mass of the vehicle determined via a lookup in a vehicle database and (ii) one or more characteristics of an accident scene of the vehicular incident.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “based at least in part on the selected one or more portions of the virtual representation by the user and the inputs provided by the user on the map interface, initiate a physics engine to generate a simulation of the vehicular incident.” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “a network communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Collins et al., U.S. Patent No 9824453, discloses a methods provide for an automated system for generating one or more three dimensional (3D) images of a vehicle and/or a baseline image for that vehicle.
Schreitmueller et al., U.S. Patent 5839112, teaches an insurance estimator to quickly and accurately estimate damage to various parts of a vehicle. The invention allows the estimator to analyze damage to various "layers" of a vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant is refusing or postponing filing terminal disclaimer and therefore Double Patenting. The examiner would recommend the applicant file a terminal disclaimer to help move this case along in compact prosecution.
Examiner has reviewed all of these amendments and new claims and examiner remains firm in the 101 rejection. The examiner remains firm that at the heart of the invention it is claim trigger systems based on virtual representation by user input initiates a simulation. The examiner respectfully argues the applicant is only just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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 Anderson can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights