DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 12 and 16-20. No claims have been added or canceled. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 08 December 2025 with respect to:
objection to claims 1, 9 and 17,
double patenting rejection;
rejections of claims 1, 9 and 17 under U.S.C. § 112(a),
rejections of claims 1-20 under U.S.C. § 112(b),
rejection to claims 1-20 under U.S.C. § 101,
rejections of claims 1-4, 7, 9-12, 15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Howe et al (US Pub. No. 20170352099 A1) in view of Tofte (US Pub. No. 20140100889 A1),
rejections of claims 5, 8, 13, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Tofte, in further view of Wells et al (US Pub. No. 20180040039 A1), and
rejections of claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Tofte, in further view of Ives et al (US Pub. No. 20140081675 A1)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request to hold double patenting rejection over US Patent No. 12,026,602 in abeyance until a determination as to the allowability of the pending claims has been made. Accordingly, Examiner maintains double patenting rejection.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims to overcome claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C § 112(b) rejections. However, amendments are not totally effective.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections of claims 1, 9 and 17, Applicant has not identified parts of the specification which describes the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model. Accordingly, § 112(a) rejections have been maintained.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2A – Prong One contending that the claims do not recite a judicial exception in that the Applicant’s specification describes techniques for training and using machine learning models to determine vehicle damage claim amounts/values based on vehicle telematics data and image data [remarks page 12]. Examiner respectfully disagrees in that, although the claims recite using machine learning models, the specification does not describe algorithms which convey the specifics of how the machine learning models work. This analysis is also describe in the § 112(a) rejections recited in this office action.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility in that:
display[ing] the second value on an application executing in the mobile device and
prompt[ing] the customer to accept the claim value as a final binding settlement of an insurance claim relating to the damaged vehicle
are integrated into a practical application of a judicial exception [remarks page 13 and 14]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The specific limitations, as recited above, are recited at a high level of generality such that the method of representative claim 1 conveys general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2B alleging that the claimed system contains “significantly more” because the claims recite additional elements which are not solely applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The recited additional elements include:
“inputting, via the processor, the image to a first machine learning model; determining, via the processor, using the first machine learning model, and based on the image, a first value associated with the physical object; inputting, via the processor, the first value and the telematics data to a second machine learning model; determining, via the processor, using the second machine learning model, and based on the first value and the telematics data, a second value associated with the physical object; and transmitting, via the processor, the second value to the mobile device of the customer, causing a component of the mobile device to display the second value on an application executing in the mobile device”
which involve at least real-time processing of the received image data and telematics data in order to determine accurate claim valuations more efficiently [remarks pages 14 and 15]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites MPEP 2106.05(a) which notes that accelerating an analyzing process, where the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general purpose computer, has been found to be insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality.
As with determining a practical application to an abstract idea, types of limitations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) – subject matter eligibility under Step 2B - include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b),
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c),
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Further, limitations also indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention does not contain any of these “types” of aforementioned limitations.
Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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),
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g),
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h),
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo.
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention merely appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. These issues are clarified herein in the revised 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection in view of the claim amendments and the January 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – 2019 PEG.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application, filed on 28 May 2024 is a continuation of application 16/529,056, filed on 01 August 2019, and is now US Patent No. 12,026,602. Application 16/529,056 claims priority from provisional application 62/713,355, filed on 01 August 2018. Accordingly, this application is given priority from 01 August 2018.
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of application 16/529,056 (US Patent No. 12,026,602). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claim 1 in the instant application are substantially similar to limitations found in the claim of the patent; claim 1 of the instant application is broader than that of the patent.
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, 9 and 17 the representative limitations recite:
determining using the first machine learning model, and based on the image, a first value associated with the physical object;
and:
determining using the second machine learning model, and based on the first value and the telematics data, a second value associated with the physical object;
However, Applicant's specification does not say what “the first machine learning model” and “the second machine learning model” comprises. For example, paragraph [0025] of US Pub. No. 20240311612 A1 Applicant’s specification recites:
[0025] Communication between the application and remote computing device 212 may be implemented using any suitable programming language, technology stack, and/or framework. For example, a client-server web development framework may be used to implement a web site, mobile application (e.g., an Android application package, etc.), and/or set of server-side processing scripts/programs. The server-side components may execute in an application server. In some embodiments, a front-end web application framework (e.g., a JavaScript web framework) may implement some or all of the server-side components. Once the remote computing device 212 receives the information submitted by the customer 206, the remote computing device may invoke a trained ML model in ML operation module 220. That is, by the time a user submits a self-service request for information relating to vehicle damage, remote computing device 212 may have already trained one or more ML model. A first ML model may be provided with the image 208 as input, and may output a set of image parameters. As stated above, telematics data may also be received via the network 210. The set of image parameters and the telematics data may be provided as input to a second ML model executing in ML operation module 222. The second ML model may be configured to output a claim valuation prediction, which may be analyzed by claim valuation module 222 to determine a precise value corresponding to the damage to the vehicle 202.
However, the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer functions – i.e. “determining using the first machine learning model, a first value” and “determining using the second machine learning model, a second value” - are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail; simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient. In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be, but is not, described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. As per MPEP:
MPEP 2163 Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, "Written Description" Requirement [R-10.2019]
35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the "specification shall contain a written description of the invention ...." This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description"). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. "[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant has invented the subject matter which is claimed." In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). "The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.
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.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a “method” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining a second value associated with the physical object which is grouped under a method of organizing human activity.
in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p.p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019))). Claims recite:
receiving an image illustrating a damage to a physical object;
obtaining telematics data associated with an impact that caused the physical object to become damaged;
inputting the image to a first “machine learning” model;
determining using the first “machine learning” model, and based on the image, a first value associated with the physical object;
inputting the first value and the telematics data to a second “machine learning” model;
determining using the second “machine learning” model, and based on the first value and the telematics data, a second value associated with the physical object; and
transmitting the second value to a computing device.
The limitation:
causing to display the second value.
is no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as a computing device, a processor and a first and second machine learning model and an application on a computing device represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of determining a second value associated with the physical object using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 3, 4 and 6-8 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity.
In claims 2 and 5, the features:
an electronic data recorder;
a convolutional neural network (CNN);
an interface of an application running on the computing device
add technology to the abstract idea of the independent claim. However, each of these is a generic technological component, and its use is in its normal, expected, and routine manner. The components are recited at a high level of generality which do not improve another technology or technical field nor the functioning of the computer itself.
Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the method of organizing human activity in the independent claim.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 9-16 otherwise styled as a system, and claims 17-20 styled as a computer readable medium would be subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 7, 9-12, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe et al (US Pub. No. 20170352099 A1) in view of Tofte (US Pub. No. 20140100889 A1), in further view of Dahl (US Pub. No. 20210272210 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Howe teaches a system for processing a set of images of a property to identify a type of damage to the property [0007]. The system includes a processing device and a computer-readable medium containing programming instructions that are configured to cause the processing device to identify the damage [Id.]. He teaches:
a computer-implemented method of processing digital images of physical objects – [0007], the method comprising:
receiving, via a processor and from a computing device of a customer, an image illustrating a damage to a physical object – [0032];
obtaining, via the processor, … “data” associated with an impact that caused the physical object to become damaged – [0032] “captures digital images of the damaged facet(s) of the property”, [0033] and [0035] “stores image acquisition parameters that characterize how the image sensor should operate to capture digital images for a particular property damage category”;
inputting, via the processor, the image to a first machine learning model – [0032] “the image analysis system 102 automatically analyzes the acquired images”;
determining, via the processor, using the first machine learning model, and based on the image, a first value associated with the physical object – [0036] “machine learning … The image analysis system 102 may also determine the measurements and other data necessary to compute the amount of the claim payment”;
inputting, via the processor, the first value and the … “data” to a second machine learning model – [0032] “communicates the property damage assessment results to a claim delivery system”;
determining, via the processor, using the second machine learning model, … a second value associated with the physical object – [0036] “claim payment”; and
transmitting, via the processor, the second value to a computing device – [0032] “The claim delivery system 103 communicates the claim results to an electronic device 108 of a relevant party via a communication link 110”.
Howe does not explicitly disclose:
determining, via the processor, using the second machine learning model, and based on the first value and the … “data”, a second value associated with the physical object (emphasis added).
However, Tofte teaches a method in a computing device having a processor which includes using the processor to receive at least one image of a structure [0008]. In the method, the processor is also used to compare the received image to at least one reference image in an image database. As part of the method, the processor also performs a damage calculation based at least in part on the image comparison (Applicant’s first value). Using the results of the damage calculation, the processor may then generate a financial damage estimate and a final claim assessment (Applicant’s second value). The processor can then send the final claim assessment to an insurance agent or a client [Id.]. He teaches a claim assessment module using or accessing a modeling module to take the received image or images and generate a model of the allegedly damaged structure based on the image or images [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howe’s disclosure to include generating a financial damage estimate and a final claim assessment from a damage calculation as taught by Tofte since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Neither Howe nor Tofte explicitly discloses:
obtaining, via the processor, telematics data associated with an impact that caused the physical object to become damaged; and
inputting, via the processor, the first value and the telematics data to a second machine learning.
However, Dahl teaches systems and methods for managing insurance contracts [0004]. He teaches a vehicle with a telematics computer device and a plurality of sensors such as impact sensors that detect impacts to vehicle, including force and direction, and sensors that detect actions of vehicle, such the deployment of airbags [0098]. He teaches a telematics computer device that tracks driving characteristic including sudden acceleration/ deceleration, average speed, average stopping distance, and driving efficiency [0106]. He teaches a machine learning function using vehicle telematics data to update or generate a user or driving profile [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howe’s disclosure to include impact sensors and machine learning along telematics data as taught by Dahl in order to make adjustments to automobile insurance rates or premiums based on analyzing historical accident information related to insurance risk – Dahl [0146].
Regarding claim 2, 10 and 18, Howe teaches the data as comprising first exception data, the method further comprising:
receiving, via the processor, second exception data associated with the physical object from the computing device of the customer – [0076];
receiving, via the processor, third exception data associated with the physical object from an electronic data recorder of the physical object – [0076]; and
generating, via the processor, the first exception data based on the second exception data and the third exception data, the first exception data – [0076].
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Howe teaches the third exception data as including an acceleration – [0076].
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Howe teaches the data characterizing the impact as identifying an angle of the impact – [0051].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Howe teaches the first value as including a discrete value indicating a level of the damage – [0039] and [0049].
Claims 5, 8, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Tofte, in further view of Dahl, in further view of Wells et al (US Pub. No. 20180040039 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Howe teaches the first machine learning model being established based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) – [0038].
Neither Howe, Tofte nor Dahl explicitly discloses:
trained using annotated training data, and the annotated training data as including a set of images associated with past damaged physical objects, each image included in the set of images being labeled with a dollar amount indicative of a past claim value
However, Wells teaches a system which includes a touch-sensitive display, one or more processors operable to receive input data related to a driver's automobile and, based on the input data, display on the touch-sensitive display a stock image of an automobile corresponding to the driver's automobile [0004]. The stock image includes a plurality of selectable automobile body parts. The one or more processors are further operable to receive a selection of a particular automobile body part on the stock image that corresponds to a damaged body part of the driver's automobile and display, on the touch-sensitive display, a partitioned image of the selected automobile body part that corresponds to the damaged body part of the driver's automobile [Id.]. He teaches determining, based on a status of the damaged body part of a user’s vehicle, a line-item estimate for the damaged body part of user’s vehicle [0074]. If it is determined that the body part is to be replaced, the line-item estimate may include a list of parts needed to replace the damaged body part and a cost associated with each part (e.g., component cost, labor cost, etc.) [Id.]. He teaches method utilizing a model generated from a visual inspection and labeling of a historical sample of images of damaged and undamaged body parts [0077]. Sample images may identify the type of damage (e.g., scuff, scratch, dent, partially detached, fully detached, missing, small or large tear, holed or crumpled) and the location of the damage [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howe’s disclosure to include a list of parts needed to replace a damaged body part with associated costs as taught by Wells because it automates the system and makes the system cost effective..
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 20, neither Howe, Tofte nor Dahl explicitly discloses:
displaying a prompt as to whether to accept the second value and settle an insurance claim corresponding to the physical object.
However, Wells teaches an appraiser review, wherein the appraiser may confirm and accept the preliminary estimate or make needed changes to the estimate [0082]. The appraiser can then complete and lock the estimate [Id.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howe’s disclosure to include completing and locking an estimate as taught by Wells because it automates the system and makes the system cost effective..
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Tofte, in further view of Dahl, in further view of Ives et al (US Pub. No. 20140081675 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, neither Howe, Tofte nor Dahl explicitly discloses the first value as including a Boolean value indicative of a recommendation as to whether the damage is a total loss.
However, Ives teaches one or more systems, apparatus, methods, articles of manufacture, and/or computer readable media providing for one or more of: (i) establishing coefficients useful for assessing a severity of damage to insured property, (ii) managing damage claim appraisals for assessing a severity of damage to insured property, and/or (iii) providing a recommendation of one or more actions based on damage claim information associated with a damage claim [0020]. He teaches an assessment of damage severity as including an indication of "total loss" [0024]. He teaches a damage severity score exceeding a total loss threshold indicating a projected damage estimate that would exceed the value of the property (a total loss) [0064]. He teaches determining at least one recommendation for an appraisal option (e.g., total loss/tow, estimate review, field appraisal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howe’s disclosure to include a total loss recommendation as taught by Ives because it allows a claim professional, a claimant, and/or the appraiser indication of how to proceed with an insurance claim – Ives [0020] and [0054].
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Adegan: “Method For Generating A Repair Estimate Through Predictive Analytics”, (US Patent No. 10360601 B1).
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 EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692