DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on October 24, 2025. Amendments to claims 1, 8-9 and 16-17 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art was already discussed in the Office action mailed on August 20, 2025 and hence not repeated here. The rejections and response to arguments are stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. 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 claim(s) recite(s) a computer-implemented method of loss estimation, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 1 is directed to a system (apparatus).
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “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:
receive, over one or more networks, a trigger from a computing device of a user, the trigger indicating that the user has experienced a personal injury from an injury event; provide, over the one or more networks, an injury interface for display on the computing device of a claimant, the injury interface including a customized human representation of the user, the customized human representation being based at least in part on a set of physical attributes of the user, the injury interface providing the customized human representation to be rotatable about multiple axes to enable the user to provide input data to specify one or more locations on the human representation to indicate injury locations;
wherein the injury interface includes one or more selectable features, provided with the customized human representation, to enable the user to provide contextual information, including severity information, corresponding to the injury event;
receive, over the one or more networks, input data specifying the one or more injury locations and the contextual information;
initiate a simulation engine using at least the input data specifying the one or more injury locations and the contextual information;
automatically determine, based on a simulation of the injury event, a feasibility level with regard to the injury locations and injury severity information provided by the user via the injury interface; and
based at least in part on the simulation of the input data, contextual information, and the feasibility level, generate a fraud score for a subsequent filing of the user” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
“Automatically determine, based on a simulation of the injury event, a feasibility level with regard to the injury locations and injury severity information provided by the user via the injury interface; and based at least in part on the simulation of the input data, contextual information, and the feasibility level, generate a fraud score for a subsequent filing of the user” is a fundamental economic practice such as estimating and mitigating risk. Automatically determine, based on a simulation of the injury event, a feasibility level with regard to the injury locations and injury severity information is also a form of fulfilling agreements with the user. Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
That is, other than, a network communication interface, one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, one or more networks, a computing device of a user including an injury interface and an interactive user interface, and a simulation engine, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity 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.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a network communication interface, one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, one or more networks, a computing device of a user including an injury interface and an interactive user interface, and a simulation engine to perform all the steps. A plain reading of at least Figures 1-2 and associated descriptions in at least paragraphs [0040] – [0042] and [0182] – [0186] reveals that one or more processors and a memory storing instructions may be generic processors and memory suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. The one or more networks may be generic networks. The computing device of a user may be a generic computing device such as desktop computers, laptop computers. PDAs etc. The network communication interface, the injury interface, the interactive user interface and the simulation engine are broadly interpreted to correspond to suitably programmed generic software components. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
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, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claims 9 and 17 are also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claims 2-3, 10-11 and 18-19, the steps “wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: categorize the personal injury of the user based on the user inputs on the injury interface”, and
“wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to categorize the personal injury as at least one of mild, moderate, or severe” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 4-5, 12-13 and 20, the steps
“wherein the injury event comprises a vehicle collision”, and
“wherein the simulation comprises a simulation of the vehicle collision” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the injury event used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 6-7 and 14-15, the steps
“wherein the human representation comprises a customized avatar of the user” and “wherein the human representation comprises a three-dimensional representation of the user” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process. The additional element of a customized avatar is broadly interpreted to correspond to generic software suitably programmed to perform the associated function. The additional element of the customized avatar, performs a traditional function recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In claims 8 and 16, the steps “wherein executed instructions further cause the computing system to:
determine a health care provider that treated the personal injury of the user; and
obtain, from a health care database of the health care provider, treatment information corresponding to the personal injury of the user;
generate a loss estimate based on the user inputs, the feasibility level, and the treatment information; and
determine the one or more likely injuries based, at least in part, on the feasibility level with regard to the injury locations information, injury severity information, and the treatment information” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because this step further describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process. The additional element of a health care database of the health care provider is broadly interpreted to correspond to generic database suitably programmed to store the associated data/information. The additional element of the health care database, performs a traditional function recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together 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. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
4. Claims 1, 9 and 17 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,141,172. (‘172 Patent herein after). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite all the limitations of the issued Patent ‘172.
For example, Claim 1 of the instant application recites the following limitations of the ‘172 patent namely “1. 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:
receive, over one or more networks, a trigger from a computing device of a user, the trigger indicating that the user has experienced a personal injury from an injury event; provide, over the one or more networks, an injury interface for display on the computing device of the claimant, the injury interface including a human representation being rotatable about multiple axes and enabling the user to select locations on the human representation to indicate injury locations and provide injury severity information corresponding to the personal injury;
receive, over the one or more networks, input data indicating user inputs on the injury interface and contextual information corresponding to the injury event;
transmit, over the one or more networks, content data to the computing device of the user to enable the computing device to present an interactive user interface to provide additional contextual information corresponding to the personal injury;
based on user interactions with the interactive user interface, receive, over the one or more networks, the additional contextual information corresponding to the injury event from the computing device of the user;
initiate a simulation engine using at least the contextual information and the additional contextual information provided by the user to generate a simulation of the injury event;
automatically determine, based on the simulation of the injury event, a feasibility level with regard to the injury locations and injury severity information provided by the user via the injury interface;
based at least in part on the user inputs and feasibility level, generate a loss estimate for the user; and
based at least in part on the simulation of the injury event, generate a fraud score for a subsequent filing of the user”.
Similarly claims 9 and 17 of the instant application recite the corresponding limitations of claims 5 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,141,172.
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
6. In response to Applicants arguments on pages 9-10 of the Applicant’s remarks that the claims are patent-eligible under 35 USC 101 when considered under MPEP 2106, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The fact that the claims are Patent-Ineligible when considered under the MPEP 2106 has already been addressed in the rejection and hence not all the details of the rejection are repeated here.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong one:
The claim(s) recite(s) a computer-implemented method of loss estimation, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed in the rejection. “Automatically determine, based on a simulation of the injury event, a feasibility level with regard to the injury locations and injury severity information provided by the user via the injury interface; and based at least in part on the simulation of the input data, contextual information, and the feasibility level, generate a fraud score for a subsequent filing of the user” is a fundamental economic practice such as estimating and mitigating risk. Automatically determine, based on a simulation of the injury event, a feasibility level with regard to the injury locations and injury severity information is also a form of fulfilling agreements with the user. Hence, the claims recite an abstract idea. Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong two:
According to MPEP 2106, limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The claim (exemplary claim 1) only recites the additional elements of a network communication interface, one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, one or more networks, a computing device of a user including an injury interface and an interactive user interface, and a simulation engine to perform all the steps. A plain reading of at least Figures 1-2 and associated descriptions in at least paragraphs [0040] – [0042] and [0182] – [0186] reveals that one or more processors and a memory storing instructions may be generic processors and memory suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. The one or more networks may be generic networks. The computing device of a user may be a generic computing device such as desktop computers, laptop computers. PDAs etc. The network communication interface, the injury interface, the interactive user interface and the simulation engine are broadly interpreted to correspond to suitably programmed generic software components. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claimed features including those recited on pages 9-10 such as “provide, over the one or more networks, an injury interface for display on the computing device of a claimant, the injury interface including a customized human representation of the user, the customized human representation being based at least in part on a set of physical attributes of the user, the injury interface providing the customized human representation to be rotatable about multiple axes to enable the user to provide input data to specify one or more locations on the human representation to indicate injury locations; wherein the injury interface includes one or more selectable features, provided with the customized human representation, to enable the user to provide contextual information, including severity information, corresponding to the injury event” may at best be characterized as an improvement in the abstract idea of a computer-implemented method of loss estimation, using the additional elements (identified in the rejection) as tools in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea. An improvement in abstract idea is still abstract (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea). The additional elements (identified in the rejection) are generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. Hence, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong two and Step 2B:
As discussed in the rejection, the claims do 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, using the additional elements (identified in the rejection) to perform the claimed steps, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
The alleged advantages and claimed features that Applicants tout (on page 10 of the remarks) such as “(1) the generation and presentation of a customized human representation of the user based on physical attributes of the user, and (2) the customized human representation of the user is rotatable around multiple axes… Further non-conventional with respect to reporting injuries include (3) conducting a simulation of the injury event, and based on the simulation, (4) the determination of a feasibility score relating to the user-reported injury(ies)” do not concern an improvement in computer capabilities but instead relate to an alleged improvement in the abstract idea relating to “a computer-implemented method of loss estimation”, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity. The computer system is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Therefore, the Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive. For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
Applicants’ arguments regarding Double Patenting rejections have already been addressed in the rejection itself, hence no further response is deemed necessary. Applicant’s other arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Gabel; Gershon et al. (US Pub. 2015/0172894 A1) discloses systems and methods that are configured to detect the occurrence of accidents, and to collect, process, and distribute accident related data. The accident related information may include location information, accident image information, and/or other information. Optionally, upon detection of an accident, emergency contacts of a user involved in the accident may be automatically notified of the accident. Service providers may be contacted over a network to provide accident-related services.
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
January 10, 2026