DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 1/12/2026. The amendments to claims 1-20 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejections and response to arguments are stated below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 1/13/2026, 2/24/2026 and 3/26/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and claim 20 is directed to a method; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for generating a total loss prediction based on a damage repair amount determined from captured property damage images and property owner input, i.e. managing insurance and claims, which is a fundamental economic practice, which falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, in bold below recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. (Currently Amended) A computing system comprising:
a network communication interface;
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations that include:
receiving claim information identifying a property of a user involved in an incident, wherein receiving the claim information includes:
(i) providing, on a computing device of the user, an interface that includes a three-dimensional representation of the property;
(ii) implementing, via the interface, a walkthrough process in which the user is instructed to capture images of damage to the user's property; and
(iii) enabling the user to provide, via the three-dimensional representation of the property, input indicating damage to the property;
based at least in part on the captured images and the input provided by the user, determining a damage repair amount for the property; and
generating a total loss prediction based on the damage repair amount for the property.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “a network communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions” and “a computing device of the user, an interface” in claim 1 and “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system” and “a computing device of the user, an interface” in claim 11 and “on one or more processors” and “a computing device of the user, an interface” in claim 20, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Examiner notes that providing a three-dimensional image on an generic display is merely displaying information which is part of the abstract idea. There are no granular technical implementation details such that it is anything more than merely displaying information. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea as do claims 11 and 20.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed communicating over a generic network, to perform the abstract idea steps. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least Figs 24 and 25 and paragraphs [0039], [0042-0044] and [0052] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea as are claims 11 and 20.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with displays and memory suitably programmed for communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible and neither are claims 11 and 20.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of generating a total loss prediction based on a damage repair amount determined from captured property damage images and property owner input, i.e. managing insurance and claims, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claims 2 and 12 further refine the abstract idea by defining that claim information is received via a claim process as involving multiple individuals providing incident information. Claims 3 and 13 further refine the abstract idea by defining the claim information as a location of the property and wherein the damage amount considers the distance from the location to one or more service providers. The determining step can be completed through mental evaluation but for the nominal recitation of generic computing elements. Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 further refine the abstract idea by merely guiding a user to capture images of the damaged property while outlining the image for the user to capture. This is gathering data via pictures taken on a generic computing device, i.e. a smartphone. The guiding can be completed in many different ways. Claim 6 and 16 recites the additional element of a trained machine learning model, i.e. an iterative mathematical algorithm The training is recited at a very high level of generality and is applied upon to compute a value, i.e. a total loss prediction with damage repair amount. This further refines the abstract idea and also falls under the mathematical processes category. Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 further refine the abstract idea by merely providing a ranked list of service repair providers based on certain parameters and information. This is managing insurance claims and can be determined mentally but for the nominal recitation of generic computing components. Claims 9, 10 and 19 further refine the abstract idea by automating the manual process of scheduling repair service based on the user authorization and the total loss prediction.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for generating a total loss prediction based on a damage repair amount determined from captured property damage images and property owner input, i.e. managing insurance and claims) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for generating a total loss prediction based on a damage repair amount determined from captured property damage images and property owner input, i.e. managing insurance and claims) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that 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 or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins et al. (US 10,573,012 Bl)( Collins hereinafter)
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20: (Currently Amended) Collins discloses a computing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium and method (see at least claims 1, 12 and 17) comprising:
a network communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (claim 12), cause the computing system to perform operations that include:
receiving claim information identifying a property of a user involved in an incident (at least col.32, lines 58-62, “If server 101 determines that the claim request is valid, the process may move to step 2207 where the mobile device may receive images about the claim event from an imaging device (e.g., a camera operatively connected to the mobile device).”, wherein receiving the claim information includes:
(i) providing, on a computing device of the user, an interface that includes a three-dimensional representation of the property; (at least FIG.25, elements 2505 and 2507a, at least col.1, lines 62-65, “…generating three-dimensional (3D) images and disclose methods, computer-readable media, and apparatuses for generating 3D images for an item, such as a vehicle, which may be insured.”).
(ii) implementing, via the interface, a walkthrough process in which the user is instructed to capture images of damage to the user's property; (at least FIG. 4, 5a and 15, and col.10, lines 12-24 and lines 41-49).
(iii) enabling the user to provide, via the three-dimensional representation of the property, input indicating damage to the property; (at least col.33, lines 30-48, “…video (e.g., by walking around the vehicle to generate a complete view), and/or three-dimensional photos/video may assist in determining the depth of damage to a vehicle.”).
based at least in part on the captured images and the input provided by the user, determining a damage repair amount for the property; (at least col.11, lines 15-22, “Server 101 may also determine a damage estimate (e.g., an estimate for repairing and/or replacing any damaged parts) after analyzing the photos in step 313 based on predefined rules. The damage estimate may be generated by comparing the photos submitted by the mobile device with photos of similarly damaged vehicles or with photos of non-damaged vehicles of similar make/model.”) and
generating a total loss prediction based on the damage repair amount for the property, (at least col.12, lines 10-20, “Server 101 may then add these two damage estimates to generate a total damage estimate.”, lines 30-32, at least col.15, lines 8-12, “…server 101 may compare this basic cost estimate with the cost of merely replacing the vehicle ( e.g., a total loss) or the damaged part within the vehicle and based on the comparison, server 101 may suggest the cheaper option.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14: (Currently Amended) Collins further discloses wherein the operations include:
during the walkthrough process, guiding the user via the interface to capture images of damage to the property. (at least FIG. 4, 5a and 15, and col.10, lines 12-24 and lines 41-49).
Regarding claims 5 and 15: (Currently Amended) Collins further discloses wherein:
guiding the user includes providing an outline of an image for the user to capture. (at least FIG.25, element 2507, reads on an outline and instructions to capture an image).
Regarding claims 6 and 16: (Currently Amended) Collins further discloses, wherein:
generating the total loss prediction includes executing a machine learning model, trained at least in part on historical loss data of properties, on the claim information, the machine learning model predicting the total loss prediction based at least in part on damage repair amount for the property, (at least col.14, lines 48-67, “…may acquire the knowledge of all previous claims processed by server 101, as well as the knowledge of human adjusters, to accurately process future claims. In this way, server 101 may use machine learning to evolve its cost and/or repair estimation procedure based on past experience.”).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (US 10,573,012 Bl)(Collins hereinafter) in view of Gabel (US 9,866,673 B2)
Regarding claims 2 and 12: although the disclosure of Collins substantially discloses claims 1 and 11 above, it appears that Collins does not explicitly disclose, however Gabel discloses
wherein the claim information is received via a claim process in which a plurality of individuals involved in the incident provide contextual information corresponding to the incident, (at least FIG. 11E, at least col.15, lines 11-49, “An audio recording control may be provided enabling a person (e.g., a witness or accident participant) to record an audio statement without recording a video of the person. An interface may be provided to enable witnesses and/or those involved in the accident to sign a video statement (that includes both video image and audio components) and/or an audio statement (without a video component).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system for three dimensional image scanning for a vehicle of Collins the ability to gather incident information from a plurality of people involved as disclosed by Gabel since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and, in combination, each element would merely have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the features disclosed by Gabel, to the known invention of Collins, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. The motivation to combine is that by gathering as much detailed information from everyone involved in the incident a more accurate claims processing can be performed. This ensures every party involved, including the insurance company, receives the most optimized result.
Regarding claims 3 and 13: (Currently Amended) Collins in view of Gabel further discloses
the claim information includes a location of the property, and wherein determining the damage repair amount includes determining a distance between one or more service providers for repairing the property, and the location of the property. (Gabel: at least col.12, lines 64-67 and col.13, lines 1-6, “…a referral to a vehicle repair service ( e.g., a body shop), the process proceeds to state 142. The system accesses a database of repair service provider records and repair service provider referral criteria. For example, the referral criteria may include, the location of the relative to the user's current location (e.g., within a specified or determined range, such as 1 mile, 2 miles, or other distance, where the range is optionally specified by the system operator for a given service provider or class of service providers via an administrative user interface) or home location…”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17: (Currently Amended) Collins in view of Gabel further discloses wherein the operations include:
based on a set of parameters, generating one or more ranked lists of service providers to repair the property for the user, the set of parameters including at least one of: user-specific information of the user, a location-based optimization that is based on respective distances between one or more service providers and a location of the property, service provider ratings, or service provider costs, (at least col.13, lines 1-12).
Regarding claims 8 and 18: (Currently Amended) Collins in view of Gabel further discloses wherein the operations include:
providing, over one or more networks, the one or more ranked lists of service providers to the computing device of the user, (at least col.17, lines 18-27, “The attorney(s) or agency(ies) presented via the user interface may have been dynamically selected and/or presented in ranked order by the system based on one or more criteria. For example, the criteria may optionally include one or more of the following: a determined practice specialty, location relative to the user's current location and/or home location (e.g., accessed from the user's account information), performance ratings provided by the system operator, performance ratings provided by other users, ratings/feedback provided by a state bar, ratings/feedback provided by an independent rating agency,…”).
Claims 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (US 10,573,012 Bl)(Collins hereinafter) in view of Gabel (US 9,866,673 B2) and further in view of Hanson et al.(US 8,751,270 B1)(Hanson hereinafter)
Regarding claims 9 and 19: although the combination of the disclosures of Collins and Gabel substantially disclose claims 7 and 17 above it appears that the combination of the disclosures of Collins and Gabel does not explicitly disclose, however, Hanson discloses:
wherein the operations further include:
based on an authorization from the user, automatically coordinating and scheduling repair service for the property of the user using the one or more ranked lists of service providers. (at least col.20, lines 50-55, at least claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of the system for three dimensional image scanning for a vehicle as disclosed by Collins and the system of managing accident communications over a network ability as disclosed by Gabel the ability to schedule and repair damaged property based on a ranked list of service providers of Hanson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and, in combination, each element would merely have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the features disclosed by Hanson, to the known invention of Tomlinson, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. The motivation to combine is that by providing a schedule for repairs a user can efficiently choose what shop and what date/time that is most convenient for them.
Regarding claim 10: Collins in view of Gabel and Hanson discloses the computing system claim 9 above and Hanson further discloses,
wherein:
operations include selecting and scheduling one or more service providers from the one or more ranked lists using the total loss prediction, (at least col.19, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the combination of the system for three dimensional image scanning for a vehicle as disclosed by Collins and the system of managing accident communications over a network ability as disclosed by Gabel the ability to the ability to coordinate and schedule repair service based on total loss calculation as disclosed by Hanson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and, in combination, each element would merely have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the features disclosed by Hanson, to the combination of Collins and Gabel, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. The motivation to combine is that by providing a schedule for repairs based on a total loss calculation a user can efficiently choose what shop and what date/time that is most convenient for them.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn, however, if the instant application requires a double patenting rejection prior to allowance, Examiner will request such.
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 1/12/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Accordingly, the aforementioned features relate directly to usability and other factors which were considered as improvements in TRADING TECHNOLOGIES. As such, Claim 1 represents an improvement to the functioning of a user interface generated in context of a user providing claim information, for purpose of predicting total loss.” Examine respectfully disagrees.
However, for the sake of argument, from Trading Technologies at *6, “The district court explained that the challenged patents do not simply claim displaying information on a graphical user interface. The claims require a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art. The district court concluded that the patented subject matter meets the eligibility standards of Alice Step 1. Further at page 9, ‘“It is not disputed that the TTI System improves the accuracy of trader transactions, utilizing a software-implemented programmatic method. For Section 101 purposes, precedent does not consider the substantive criteria of patentability. For Section 101 purposes, the claimed subject matter is “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” id., for the claimed graphical user interface method imparts a specific functionality to a trading system “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” id., for the claimed graphical user interface method imparts a specific functionality to a trading system “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.” Id. at 1339.”’ The invention in Trading Technologies solved a problem rooted in computer technology (i.e. limitations of existing graphic user interfaces) with a solution rooted in computer technology (i.e. “specific structure and concordant functionality” of an improved graphic user interface). In essence, the problem addressed and the solution claimed are inexorably linked to computer technology without a “pre-electronic trading analog.” As such, the invention is an improvement in a technology and/or a technical field, specifically graphic user interfaces. In contrast, Applicant claims a conventional user interface on a generic device to gather information via input and merely display directions for improving the abstract idea. This is clearly disclosed in paragraphs [0039] of the specification, “As used herein, a computing device refers to devices corresponding to desktop computers, smartphones or tablet computing devices, laptop computers, virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) headsets, etc., that can provide network connectivity and processing resources for communicating with a computing system over one or more networks.” Paragraph [0082] discloses “generate selected outlines corresponding to the user’s vehicle on the camera image presented on the display of the user device 190.” and “by the guided content capture engine 140 to dynamically update the user’s display screen based on instructions provided to the user 194 to generate a relevant vehicle outline.” Paragraph [0242], “interact with the content flows (e.g., via the display screen 2420 or input interface 2425). The content flows can correspond to information gathering for a claim process that facilitate processing a claim for a user.” (emphasis added as this is automating an abstract idea that existed prior to the advent of computing technology). Hence, Applicant merely discloses displaying information on an interactive conventional display for gathering and displaying information. There is no disclosure that the specific structure of the graphical user interface on the display imparts an improvement. Merely displaying certain types of information in a particular combination of features for summarizing and presenting information does not affect an improvement to the technology.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues ‘“The aforementioned features each represent at least one of (i) "an improvement to other technology or technical field" (e.g., user interface); (ii) an application or use of 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;" or (iii) an element that is technical and extends beyond the human mind. The "additional elements" integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and as such, confer subject matter eligibility onto the claims.
Further, under Step 2B, subject matter eligibility can be found by "consider[ing] the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." ALICE, 573 U.S. at 217. Given the specificity and technological solution provided by the claims, the claims should also be deemed subject matter eligible under Step 2B.”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has automated a manual process through the use of generic displays guiding a user to gather and submit information regarding property damage to be used in a claims processing action, i.e. an abstract idea. Certainly an insurance could provide a three dimensional rendering of a vehicle send it to the insurance user with instructions to take certain pictures who could then provide a description and indication of the damaged areas. MPEP § 2106.05(a) discusses cases in which the Federal Circuit determined that the claims did not reflect an improvement to computer-functionality or other technology. For instance, if a claimed process can be performed without a computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit "cannot be characterized as an improvement in a computer" because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further discussion of these cases, and additional examples of what the courts have indicated does and does not show an improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
Similarly, Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is a very narrow and specific one is not persuasive. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more elements recited in the claim. In the present case, the claimed technology is nothing more than generic computer technology implementing an abstract idea. In Alice also the computer system was specifically programmed to execute the claimed steps. The abstract idea of the challenged claims is not only “generating a total loss prediction based on a damage repair amount determined from captured property damage images and property owner input, i.e. managing insurance and claims” in general, but also the specific type of “generating a total loss prediction based on a damage repair amount determined from captured property damage images and property owner input, i.e. managing insurance and claims”.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. There is nothing, for example, in the pending claims to suggest that the claimed “a network communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions” and “a computing device of the user, an interface” are somehow made more efficient or that the manner in which these elements carry out their basic functions is otherwise improved in any way. The alleged advantages that Applicants argue do not concern an improvement in computer capabilities but instead relate to an alleged improvement in generating a total loss prediction based on a damage repair amount determined from captured property damage images and property owner input, i.e. managing insurance and claims, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity.
In summary, the computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejections above, rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks dated 1/12/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Collins et al.(US 10,573,012 Bl).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike 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.
//CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights