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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR §1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e), was filed on April 06, 2026 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in 37 CFR §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated January 05, 2026 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR §1.114 and the submission filed on April 06, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claims 5 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 have been newly 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
synchronizing the one or more updated geofences and updated geographical zones across,…, by replacing the one or more geofences and geographical zones with the one or more updated geofences and the one or more updated geographical zones.
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 April 06, 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 first argues that “Accordingly, the pending claims do not recite subject matter falling within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified in the USPTO guidance.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). However, the heart of this invention is tied to determining observed impact data and generating and updating geofences corresponding to such impact. Specifically, this is within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions because this has to do with insurance related to property impact which would be damage or changes to the property itself.
Applicant argues that “[t]his is a practical application of any alleged abstract concept, not an attempt to preempt the concept itself.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). 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. 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.
Applicant also argues that “[f]urther, even if the claims were found to recite a judicial exception and to be directed to that exception, the claims recite significantly more than any such exception.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). 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). 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.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, 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.
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.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner
Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights