DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 06/14/2024 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 11/13/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 15-17 are amended.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is withdrawn in view of the Amendment filed on 11/13/2025.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-11 and 13-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 15 recite “wherein the mobile device is configured to simultaneously maintain the video conferencing session and capture the image in response to the request”. However, the Original Disclosure is silent on a mobile device configured to simultaneously maintain the video conferencing session and capturing the image in in response to the request to capture the image.
Subject Matter Eligibility
The claims as a whole are to a process, an apparatus and a manufacture, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES)
The ordered combination of the recited limitations is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers facilitating communication with an insurance claim adjuster. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction — facilitating communication with a claim adjuster but for the recitation of certain generic computing components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the features of “receiving, in response to the transmitted request, the captured image from the mobile device; obtaining, during the video conference, a series of connection metrics; and adjusting the video conference based on the series of connection metrics”. Similar to that of DDR Holdings, the claims addresses technological issues rooted in the technology of video conferencing by monitoring, during the video conference, a series of connection metrics; and adjusting the video conference based on the series of connection metrics. The examiner noted that the adjusting of a video conference based on monitored connection metrics is rooted in the technology of video conferencing. As such, the claims are integrated into a practical application. (Step 2A prong two: YES)
Therefore, the claims are directed to eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandee et el. (US 2005/0038682) in view of Franceschini et. al (US 2008/0309748)
As per claim 1, Gandee teaches a method comprising:
establishing, at a remote system, a video conferencing session between the remote system and a mobile device; (See Gandee Paragraph 0028)
transmitting, from the remote system, during the video conferencing session, a request to capture an image by the mobile device, wherein the request is configured to cause the mobile device to capture the image in response to the request; (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016 and 0022-0023)
receiving, in response to the transmitted request, the captured image from the mobile device; (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016 and 0022-0023)
Gandee does not teach obtaining, during the video conference, a series of connection metrics; and
adjusting the video conference based on the series of connection metrics.
Franceschini teaches obtaining, during the video conference, a series of connection metrics; (See Franceschini Paragraph 0028, 0032-0037 and 0042-0047) and
adjusting the video conference based on the series of connection metrics. (See Franceschini Paragraph 0028, 0032-0037 and 0042-0047)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the video conference insurance claim adjuster system taught by Gandee with teaching Franceschini from to obtain connection metrics and adjust the video conference based on the connection metric during video conference claim adjustment session. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as adjustment the video conference based on connection metrics predictability improves reliability of insurance claim adjustment session. (See MPEP 2143 Examples of Rationales: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
As per claim 8, Gandee teaches a system comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the remote system to:
establish a video conferencing session between the remote system and a mobile device; (See Gandee Paragraph 0028)
a request to capture an image by the mobile device, wherein the request is configured to cause the mobile device to capture the image in response to the request, wherein the mobile device is configured to simultaneously maintain the video conferencing session and capture the image in response to the request; (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016, 0022-0023 and 0028)
receive, in response to the transmitted request, the captured image from the mobile device; (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016 and 0022-0023)
Gandee does not teach obtaining, during the video conference, a series of connection metrics; and
adjusting the video conference based on the series of connection metrics.
Franceschini teaches obtaining, during the video conference, a series of connection metrics; (See Franceschini Paragraph 0028, 0032-0037 and 0042-0047) and
adjusting the video conference based on the series of connection metrics. (See Franceschini Paragraph 0028, 0032-0037 and 0042-0047)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the video conference insurance claim adjuster system taught by Gandee with teaching Franceschini from to obtain connection metrics and adjust the video conference based on the connection metric during video conference claim adjustment session. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as adjustment the video conference based on connection metrics predictability improves reliability of insurance claim adjustment session. (See MPEP 2143 Examples of Rationales: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
As per claim 15, Gandee teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions stored therein, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
establishing, at a remote system, a video conferencing session between the remote system and a mobile device; (See Gandee Paragraph 0028)
transmitting, from the remote system, during the video conferencing session, a request to capture an image by the mobile device, wherein the request is configured to cause the mobile device to capture the image in response to the request, and wherein the mobile device is configured to simultaneously maintain the video conferencing session and capture the image in response to the request; (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016, 0022-0023 and 0028)
receiving, in response to the transmitted request, the captured image from the mobile device; (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016 and 0022-0023)
Gandee does not teach obtaining, during the video conference, a series of connection metrics; and
adjusting the video conference based on the series of connection metrics.
Franceschini teaches obtaining, during the video conference, a series of connection metrics; (See Franceschini Paragraph 0028, 0032-0037 and 0042-0047) and
adjusting the video conference based on the series of connection metrics. (See Franceschini Paragraph 0028, 0032-0037 and 0042-0047)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the video conference insurance claim adjuster system taught by Gandee with teaching Franceschini from to obtain connection metrics and adjust the video conference based on the connection metric during video conference claim adjustment session. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as adjustment the video conference based on connection metrics predictability improves reliability of insurance claim adjustment session. (See MPEP 2143 Examples of Rationales: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Gandee in view of Franceschini teaches:
receiving, at the remote system, a notification to establish a video conference between the mobile device, the mobile device being associated with a user, and the remote system, the remote system being associated with a claim adjuster; (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016, 0022-0023 and 0028)
initiating, at the remote system, the video conferencing session with the mobile device; (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016, 0022-0023 and 0028) and
receiving, at the remote system, confirmation from the mobile device that the mobile device has joined the video conferencing session. (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016, 0022-0023 and 0028, the establishing of the video conferencing session is functionality equivalent to receiving confirmation that the mobile device has joined the video conferencing session.)
As per claims 3 and 17, Gandee in view of Franceschini teaches:
providing, at the remote system, a user interface that is accessible to a claims adjuster claim adjuster, the user interface being configured to receive user inputs (See Gandee Paragraph 0022-0023 and claim 31) and control, based on the user inputs, a set of functions on the mobile device during the video conferencing session, wherein the set of functions comprises capturing an image with a camera using the mobile device; (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016 and 0022-0023, “wireless phone or other type of device equipped with a camera may be used in place of camera”.) and
receiving, at the remote system via the user interface, the user inputs and generating therefrom instructions for requesting the mobile device to capture the image. (See Gandee Paragraph 0014-0016 and 0022-0023)
As per claims 5, 11 and 19, Gandee in view of Franceschini teaches:
wherein obtaining the series of connection metrics includes: monitoring, by the remote system, a network bandwidth measured by the remote system, or receiving, at the remote system and from the mobile device, indicia of the network bandwidth measured by the mobile device. (See Franceschini Paragraph 0028, 0032-0037 and 0042-0047)
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Gandee in view of Franceschini teaches:
wherein adjusting the video conference includes: switching from a bi-directional video stream to a uni-directional video stream, switching from a video stream to an audio stream, or switching from the audio stream to text/chat communications. (See Franceschini Paragraph 0028, 0032-0037 and 0042-0047)
As per claim 7, Gandee in view of Franceschini teaches:
receiving, from the claim adjuster via the user interface, at least one determination associated with insurance claim associated with the user; and adjusting insurance claim based on the at least one determination. (See Gandee Paragraph 0025)
As per claims 14 and 21, Gandee in view of Franceschini teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the remote system to: adjust the video conference based on a comparison of the connection metrics to one or more predefined threshold thresholds. (See Franceschini Paragraph 0028, 0032-0037 and 0042-0047)
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 citing Franceschini et. al (US 2008/0309748) in view of Paek et el. (US 2012/0265660) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693