Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the RCE filed on 3/30/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15-17 and 19-23 are currently amended.
Claims 6-8 and 14 were cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 9-13 and 15-23 are pending and addressed below.
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application AFTER FINAL rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 9-13 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5, 9-13 and 15-23 are directed to a computer-implemented method, a system, a non-transitory computer readable media and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…receiving a classifier model trained to output a vehicle damage state, wherein the classifier model is trained based at least in part on: historical vehicle damage records; and damage classifications associated with the historical vehicle damage records; determining a bias probability threshold associated with the classifier model, based at least in part on: a first cost associated with a false positive classification error, and a second cost associated with a false negative classification error; receiving damage data associated with a vehicle; providing the damage data as input to the modified classifier model; and receiving, as an output of the modified classifier model, a damage classification associated with the damage data”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. analyzing and identifying the damage of the vehicle) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim is recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving… a classifier model trained…to output… a vehicle damage state; determining …a bias probability threshold…based on a first cost and a second cost with a false positive/negative error …; modifying …the classifier model, into a modified classifier model…; receiving… damage data …; providing… the damage data as input… to the modified classifier model; and receiving … a damage classification as an output …of the modified classifier model…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim is recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving… a classifier model trained…to output… a vehicle damage state; determining …a bias probability threshold…based on a first cost and a second cost…; modifying …the classifier model, into a modified classifier model…; receiving… damage data …; providing… the damage data as input… to the modified classifier model; and receiving … a damage classification as an output …of the modified classifier model…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10 and 17 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-23 are dependent on claims 1, 10 and 17. Therefore, claims 2-5, 9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-23 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 10 and 17. Claims 2-5, 9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-23 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-5, 9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-23 recite the limitations that amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-23 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims recite the limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. When viewing the limitations of the claims either individually or as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-23 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-5, 9-13 and 15-23 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…The Claims Are Not Directed to a Judicial Exception…” (Please see the remarks on pages 11-12).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Office has explained above that the claim recites the limitations of “…receiving a classifier model trained to output a vehicle damage state, wherein the classifier model is trained based at least in part on: historical vehicle damage records; and damage classifications associated with the historical vehicle damage records; determining a bias probability threshold associated with the classifier model, based at least in part on: a first cost associated with a false positive classification error, and a second cost associated with a false negative classification error; receiving damage data associated with a vehicle; providing the damage data as input to the modified classifier model; and receiving, as an output of the modified classifier model, a damage classification associated with the damage data”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. analyzing and identifying the damage of the vehicle) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the MPEP 2106.04(a) states that: “…Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Thus, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), Examiner (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) (receiving a classifier model trained to output a vehicle damage state, wherein the classifier model is trained based at least in part on: historical vehicle damage records; and damage classifications associated with the historical vehicle damage records; determining a bias probability threshold associated with the classifier model, based at least in part on: a first cost associated with a false positive classification error, and a second cost associated with a false negative classification error; receiving damage data associated with a vehicle; providing the damage data as input to the modified classifier model; and receiving, as an output of the modified classifier model, a damage classification associated with the damage data) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas of “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. analyzing and identifying the damage of the vehicle) in the Applicant’s claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) (receiving a classifier model trained to output a vehicle damage state, wherein the classifier model is trained based at least in part on: historical vehicle damage records; and damage classifications associated with the historical vehicle damage records; determining a bias probability threshold associated with the classifier model, based at least in part on: a first cost associated with a false positive classification error, and a second cost associated with a false negative classification error; receiving damage data associated with a vehicle; providing the damage data as input to the modified classifier model; and receiving, as an output of the modified classifier model, a damage classification associated with the damage data) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Therefore, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), it is reasonable to conclude that Applicant’s Claims are directed to a Judicial Exception…” (Please see the remarks on pages 11-12). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…The Claims Are Integrated into a Practical Application…” (Please see the remarks on pages 12-15).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim is recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving… a classifier model trained…to output… a vehicle damage state; determining …a bias probability threshold…based on a first cost and a second cost with a false positive/negative error…; modifying …the classifier model, into a modified classifier model…; receiving… damage data …; providing… the damage data as input… to the modified classifier model; and receiving … a damage classification as an output …of the modified classifier model…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the claim performs the functions of nothing more than “receiving… a model, output… a vehicle damage state; determining …a threshold…; modifying …the model into a modified model…; providing… the damage data, input… to the modified model; and receiving … a damage classification, output …of the modified classifier model…”. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not Integrated into a Practical Application (Please see the remarks on pages 12-15). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…The specification relates to AI technologies generally, and more particularly to modifying trained classifier models, using probability bias thresholds based on false positive and false negative costs, to analyze and classify vehicle damage based on various damage inputs (e.g., image data, telematics data, text narrative data, etc.). The instant claims reflect these improvements by reciting techniques for training, modifying, and executing classifier models. For example, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites improvements in machine-learning models by including classifier and/or regression models (e.g., logistic regression) by analyzing the labeled historical vehicle records and respective mean cost values, and modifying the models taking into account the relative costs of true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative. Therefore, the claims recite additional elements that reflect "[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field," which integrate the alleged abstract into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d)…” (Please see the remarks on pages 14-15).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim is recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving… a classifier model trained…; output… a vehicle damage state; determining …a bias probability threshold …; modifying …the classifier model, into a modified classifier model…; receiving… damage data …; providing… the damage data as input… to the modified classifier model; and receiving … a damage classification as an output …of the modified classifier model…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the claim performs the functions of nothing more than “receiving… a model, output… data; determining …a threshold…; modifying …the model into a modified model…; providing… the damage data, input… to the modified model; receiving … a damage data; output …of the modified classifier model…”. Thus, the claim performs the functions that do not improvement in how the machine learning model itself operates, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Rather, they are merely applied existing machine learning methods to new environments. Thus, using known machine learning techniques in a new data environment is not per se enough to confer patent eligibility (See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. et al., 692 F.Supp.3d 438 (Fed. Cir. 2025)). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 4: Applicant argued that: “…The Claims Recite Significantly More than the Alleged Abstract Idea Under Step 2B…” (Please see the remarks on pages 15-16).
Answer 4: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim is recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving… a classifier model trained…to output… a vehicle damage state; determining …a bias probability threshold…based on a first cost and a second cost with a false positive/negative error…; modifying …the classifier model, into a modified classifier model…; receiving… damage data …; providing… the damage data as input… to the modified classifier model; and receiving … a damage classification as an output …of the modified classifier model…” above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Thus, the claim performs the functions of nothing more than “receiving… a model, output… data; determining …a threshold…; modifying …the model into a modified model…; providing… the damage data, input… to the modified model; receiving … a damage data; output …of the modified classifier model…”. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights