DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on July 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 5 and 13 were previously cancelled. No additional claims have been cancelled and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-22 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-22 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.
In sum, claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-4, and 6-8), a machine (claims 9-12 and 14-16), and a manufacture (claims 17-22) where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of determining impact to a particular area in order to adjust the size of geofences by:
determining, based on information received from a,…, a location and extent of impact of an event, wherein the location comprises an epicenter of the event;
determining one or more geographical zones associated with the location and impact of the event, wherein each of the one or more geographical zones contains a particular level of estimated impact to areas associated with the event;
generating geofences relative to map data stored in,…, for each of the one or more geographical zones, wherein the geofences create a boundary of the geographical zones thereby defining the geographical zone;
receiving, from a user portal, data associated with observed impact to the areas associated with the event in one or more of the geographical zones, wherein the received data is input by a user into the user portal,…, associated with the user;
determining, based on the received data from the user portal associated with observed impact to the areas associated with the event in the one or more of the geographical zones, one or more of the geofences should be updated;
updating the geofences relative to the map data in,…, based on determining one or more of the geofences should be updated, adjusting a size and/or shape of the one or more geofences to reflect the observed impact to the areas associated with the event to generate one or more updated geofences thereby generating one or more updated geographical zones defined by the one or more updated geofences; and
determining, for each updated geographical zone, an access level to one or more guideline management system rules stored in an estimation rules database or an access rules database;
automatically enabling or disabling access by one or more destination,…, associated with an authorized inspector to inspection workflows based on the access level associated with each updated geographical zone;
determining that a property is reclassified from a first geographical zone to a second geographical zone based on the updated geofence; and
in response to determining the property is reclassified from the first geographical zone to the second geographical zone, automatically transmitting, to a destination,…, associated with the authorized inspector assigned to the property, an updated inspection workflow corresponding to the second geographical zone.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes, fundamental economic principles or practices as the claims deal with insurance (e.g., determining impact to a particular area in order to adjust the size of geofences).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “network source,” “memory,” and “device” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraphs [0080] and [0094] of the specification). Independent claims 9 and 17 are nearly identical to independent claim 1 so the same analysis applies to those claims as well. Claim 9 contains additional elements such as “a computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” that is being used as a tool (“apply it”) to carry out the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-22 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 are nearly identical to one another and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that historical data is used to determine the extent of the impact of an event. Dependent claims 3 and 19 are nearly identical to one another and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the information is specifically wind speed information. Dependent claims 4, 12, and 20 are nearly identical to one another and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe the mechanism for determining location and extent of impact of the event using map data. Dependent claims 6, 14, and 22 are nearly identical to one another and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the data is (“CAD survey data”). Dependent claims 7, 15, and 21 are nearly identical to one another and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe determining an accuracy of each of the one or more geographical zones. Dependent claims 8 and 16 are nearly identical to one another and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe predicting damage to the properties in each geographical zone.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following reference pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Loveland et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0102394) teaches a system and method for electronically managing the assignment of tasks to be completed.
Loveland fails to does not teach the following limitation in the current application found in independent claim 1: “determining, based on the received data from the user portal associated with observed impact to the areas associated with the event in the one or more of the geographical zones, one or more of the geofences should be updated” and “updating the geofences relative to the map data in memory, based on determining one or more of the geofences should be updated, by increasing or decreasing a size and/or changing a shape of the one or more geofences to reflect the observed impact to the areas associated with the event to generate one or more updated geofences thereby generating one or more updated geographical zones defined by the one or more updated geofences…”
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on July 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “[t]he the claims recite elements that improve the functioning of a computer system by determining, for each updated geographical zone, an access level to one or more guideline management system rules stored in an estimation rules database or an access rules database; automatically enabling or disabling access by one or more destination devices associated with an authorized inspector to inspection workflows based on the access level associated with each updated geographical zone; determining that a property is reclassified from a first geographical zone to a second geographical zone based on the updated geofence; and in response to determining the property is reclassified from the first geographical zone to the second geographical zone, automatically transmitting, to a destination device associated with the authorized inspector assigned to the property, an updated inspection workflow corresponding to the second geographical zone, thereby providing a practical application to any alleged abstract ideas stated in the Office Action.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). However, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Merely updating geofences to assess impact (it does not matter if it is positive or negative impact which may represent actual damage to the property itself) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, there are no interactive elements here which would result in the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application. Merely inputing data by a user into a user portal does not integrate the noted abstract idea into a practical application. Using geofences to map data related to observed impact areas and then updating those geofences is not a technological improvement. Generic components are being used to implement the recited abstract idea noted above. Reclassifying property and updating an inspection workflow based on this event is not a technological improvement.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights