DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in follow-up to Notice of Withdrawal from Issue Under 37 CFR 1.313 mailed on 18 September 2026. Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 as filed on 17 April 2026 remain pending. 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 17 April 2026 with respect to:
double patenting rejection;
rejections of claims 1, 9 and 17 under U.S.C. § 112(a),
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), in further view of Dahl (US Pub. No. 20210272210 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 Dahl, in further view of Wells et al (US Pub. No. 20180040039 A1).
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 Dahl, 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 filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate double patenting rejection over US Patent No. 12,026,602. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws double patenting rejection.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims 1, 9 and 17 to overcome claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections and, in turn, withdraws rejections.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding, claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, arguments are not persuasive. See revised 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection herein.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of Howe, Tofte, Dahl and Wells does not teach the added feature of claim 1 (from now canceled claim 8):
transmitting, via the processor, a signal to the computing device of the customer, the signal causing a component of the computing device to:display the second value via an application executing on the computing device, andprovide, via the application, a request for the customer to complete a digital transaction corresponding to the physical object and based on the second value.
Examiner has identified Tofte as teaching this feature at, at least [0022] and [0023] as discussed in the revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections herein.
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.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22, clauses such as “to complete a digital transaction corresponding to the physical object and based on the second value” in representative claim 1 are merely statements of intended use which do not affect the method step of “provid[ing], via the application, a request for the customer”. Similar phrasing will be interpreted accordingly.
A recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" clauses, or
(D) "whereby" clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04.
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 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 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.
Claims 1 is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method of processing digital images of physical objects, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, via a processor and from a computing device of a customer, an image illustrating damage to a physical object;
obtaining, via the processor, telematics data associated with an impact that caused the damage to the physical object;
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 being associated with the physical object and including a discrete value indicating a level of the damage;
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, a signal to the computing device of the customer, the signal causing a component of the computing device to:
display the second value via an application executing on the computing device, and
provide, via the application, a request for the customer to complete a digital transaction corresponding to the physical object and based on the second value.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in gathering damage information (i.e. “receiving… an image…”, “obtaining.. telematics data..”), analyzing the damage data to determine a level of damage (i.e. “determining… using the first machine learning model”), analyzing the damage data (i.e. “determining … using the second machine learning model”) and outputting a result of the analysis (i.e. “provide … a request for the customer”), which are all steps capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, recites additional elements including:
a processor,
a computing device of a customer,
first and second machine learning models, including inputting values into the first and second machine learning models
transmitting, via the processor, a signal to the computing device of the customer, the signal causing a component of the computing device to: display the second value via an application executing on the computing device
However, these elements are found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements amount to merely “apply it” as they amount to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea of analyzing damage data on a computer, using machine learning models, in a client server architecture (e.g. web browsers, apps, or email), and not an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For example, the "transmitting, via the processor, a signal to the computing device of the customer, the signal causing a component of the computing device to: display the second value via an application executing on the computing device” is interpreted as merely using generic client/server computing devices with generic technology like web browsers, client apps, or email to display the output results.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, as analyzed as individual components, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception as explained above.
Under Step 2B, the claims, when analyzed as individual components, and as an ordered combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 should be rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 21-22 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 6-7 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 2,5 and 21-22, the features:
an electronic data recorder;
a convolutional neural network (CNN);
an interface of an application running on the computing device; and
encrypting and decrypting data
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 mental process in the independent claim.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 9-15 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 [ld.]. 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 damage to a physical object - [0032];
obtaining, via the processor, … "data" associated with an impact that caused the damage to the physical object - [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, a signal 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), and
transmitting, via the processor, a signal to the computing device of the customer, the signal causing a component of the computing device to:display the second value via an application executing on the computing device, andprovide, via the application, a request for the customer to complete a digital transaction corresponding to the physical object and based on the second value.
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.].
Tofte teaches using a mobile computing device to process insurance claims on various objects [0022]. "Objects" can include any type of vehicle, such as, automobiles, boats, recreational vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles, as well as other forms of personal property including the user's home, jewelry, firearms, etc. The exemplary embodiments analyze information provided regarding the object, generate a model of the object, and identify damaged portions of the object. Using the information regarding the damaged object, an insurance claim processing system may determine various elements of the insurance claim (e.g., identify damaged components, estimate repair costs, identify potential occupant injury, etc.), provide an initial claim assessment, submit a completed insurance claim application to an insurance provider, and/or process the insurance claim. He teaches the insurance claim processing system being embodied as a stand alone application program or as a companion program to a web browser having messaging and storage capabilities [0023]. 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 submitting a completed insurance claim application including a damage estimate to an insurance provider using a stand alone application program on a mobile computing device as taught by Tofte because it gives the user the able to provide more complete claim data and process a claim more efficiently – Tofte [0022].
Neither Howe nor Tofte explicitly discloses:
obtaining, via the processor, telematics data associated with an impact that caused the damage to the physical object; 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 adjust automobile insurance rates or premiums based on analyzing historical accident information related to insurance risk - Dahl [0146].
Regarding claims 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];
causing, via the processor, an electronic data recorder of the physical object to collect third exception data associated with the physical object – [0076];
receiving, via the processor, the third exception data from the 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, 13 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 [ld.]. 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.) [ld.]. 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 [ld.].
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 claim 20, Howe does not explicitly disclose:
displaying a prompt as to whether to accept the second value and settle an insurance claim corresponding to the physical object.
However, Tofte teaches this at [0022] and [0023] as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for the same reasons.
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].
Claims 21-22 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 Slusar (US Pub. No. 20170228410 A1).
Regarding claims 21-22, neither Howe, Tofte nor Dahl explicitly discloses:
causing, via the processor, a hardware device associated with the physical object to encrypt the third exception data associated with the impact, and transmit the encrypted third exception data to the processor; and
decrypting, via the processor, the encrypted third exception data, wherein the first exception data is generated based on the second exception data and the decrypted third exception data.
However, Slusar teaches methods, computer readable storage media, software, systems and apparatuses for protecting, authenticating, and verifying vehicle measurement and/or operational data provided by telematics devices [0008]. He teaches encrypting vehicle location data by a telematics device before transmission, and the decrypting the data –[0042] and [0043].
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 encrypting and decrypting data by a telematics device data as taught by Slusar in order to protect, authenticate, and verify vehicle measurement data provided by telematics devices - Slusar [0006].
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Lorenz et al: “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING INSURANCE CLAIMS”, (Canadian Patent No. CA 2 414 587 C).
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
Prosecution Insights