DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 1 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations that are denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method of improved vehicle collision analysis using smart infrastructure and current sensor data generated contemporaneously with a current vehicle collision, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, via one or more processors, historical sensor data associated with a past vehicle collision, wherein the historical sensor data includes data generated by smart infrastructure comprising one or more of smart traffic lights, smart intersections, or roadside sensors; inputting, via the one or more processors, the historical sensor data into an algorithm, the algorithm being a machine learning algorithm that is trained by the historical sensor data to determine a percentage of fault for human drivers or self-driving vehicles; receiving, via the one or more processors, current sensor data associated with the current vehicle collision, receiving the current sensor data comprises wirelessly receiving, from one or more of the smart traffic lights, smart intersections, or roadside sensors, real-time sensor data generated contemporaneously with the current vehicle collision; and inputting, via the one or more processors, the current sensor data into the machine learning algorithm to determine a percentage of fault of the current vehicle collision for a human driver or a self-driving vehicle; generating, via the one or more processors, a new block including the determined percentage of fault or a link thereto; and adding, via the one or more processors, the new block to a blockchain. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as business relations. Also, the claim limitations are managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. Lastly, the claim limitations that involve a machine learning model are mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer, processor, sensor, smart infrastructure, smart traffic lights, smart intersections, roadside sensors, self-driving vehicle, wirelessly receiving, new block and blockchain. The additional elements of a computer, processor, sensor, smart infrastructure, smart traffic lights, smart intersections, roadside sensors, self-driving vehicle, wirelessly receiving, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of the new block and blockchain are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (computer, processor, sensor, smart infrastructure, smart traffic lights, smart intersections, roadside sensors, self-driving vehicle, wirelessly receiving, new block and blockchain) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and generally linking the use of blockchain to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 3 recites wherein the current sensor data further includes data generated by a vehicle not involved in the current vehicle collision. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of sensor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the current sensor data further includes telematics data collected by another vehicle in a vicinity of the current vehicle collision. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of sensor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites further comprising: receiving, via the one or more processors, an electronic notification of the current vehicle collision generated by the vehicle from analysis of sensor data generated by one or more vehicle-mounted sensors. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of processor, sensor and vehicle-mounted sensors are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites further comprising: receiving, via the one or more processors, an electronic notification of the current vehicle collision generated by a vehicle from analysis of image data generated by one or more vehicle-mounted sensors or cameras. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 8, and the additional elements of processor, vehicle-mounted sensors or cameras are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 8 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 8, supra.
Claim 7 recites further comprising: receiving, via the one or more processors, an electronic notification of the current vehicle collision generated by a vehicle from analysis of telematics data generated by one or more vehicle-mounted sensors. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of processor and vehicle-mounted sensors are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 8 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations that are denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 8 recites A computer-implemented method of improved vehicle collision analysis using smart infrastructure and current sensor data generated contemporaneously with a current vehicle collision, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, via one or more processors, historical sensor data associated with a past vehicle collision, wherein the historical sensor data includes data generated by smart infrastructure comprising one or more of smart traffic lights, smart intersections, or roadside sensors; inputting, via the one or more processors, the historical sensor data into an algorithm, the algorithm being a machine learning algorithm that is trained by the historical sensor data to: (i) determine a percentage of fault for human drivers or self-driving vehicles, and (ii) determine data relevant to a past vehicle collision; receiving, via the one or more processors, current sensor data associated with the current vehicle collision, wherein receiving the current sensor data comprises wirelessly receiving, from one or more of the smart traffic lights, smart intersections, or roadside sensors, real-time sensor data generated contemporaneously with the current vehicle collision; and inputting, via the one or more processors, the current sensor data into the machine learning algorithm to determine: (i) that a vehicle was under autonomous control before, during, and/or after the current vehicle collision, and (ii) a percentage of fault for the vehicle determined to be under autonomous control; generating, via the one or more processors, a new block including the determined percentage of fault or a link thereto; and adding, via the one or more processors, the new block to a blockchain. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as business relations. Also, the claim limitations are managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. Lastly, the claim limitations that involve a machine learning model are mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer, smart infrastructure, processors, sensor, smart traffic lights, wirelessly receiving, smart intersections, roadside sensors, new block and blockchain. The additional elements of a computer, smart infrastructure, processors, sensor, smart traffic lights, wirelessly receiving, smart intersections, roadside sensors, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of the new block and blockchain are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (computer, smart infrastructure, processors, sensor, smart traffic lights, wirelessly receiving, smart intersections, roadside sensors, new block and blockchain) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and generally linking the use of blockchain to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of blockchain to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 10 recites further comprising: creating, via the one or more processors, a new blockchain corresponding to the current vehicle collision, wherein the new blockchain includes the determined percentage of fault. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 8, and the additional elements of processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 8 analysis above. Also, these limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 8, and the additional elements of a blockchain are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application). Further, the additional element of block and blockchain in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions generally linking the use of blockchain to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions generally linking the use of blockchain to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 11 recites wherein the current sensor data further includes data generated by a vehicle not involved in the current vehicle collision. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 8, and the additional elements of sensor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 8 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 8, supra.
Claim 12 recites wherein the current sensor data further includes telematics data collected by the vehicle, a mobile device traveling within the vehicle, another vehicle in a vicinity of the current vehicle collision, or combinations thereof. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 8, and the additional elements of sensor and a mobile device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 8 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 8, supra.
Claim 13 recites further comprising: receiving, via the one or more processors, an electronic notification of the current vehicle collision generated by the vehicle from analysis of telematics data generated by one or more vehicle-mounted sensors. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 8, and the additional elements of processor and vehicle-mounted sensor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 8 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 8, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein: the historical sensor data further includes data of control decisions implemented by autonomous vehicles; and the current sensor data includes data of a control decision implemented by the vehicle. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 8, and the additional elements of autonomous vehicles and sensor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 8 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 8, supra.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 15 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations that are denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 15 recites a computer system for improved vehicle collision analysis using smart infrastructure, the system comprising: a network interface configured to interface with one or more processors; a first smart infrastructure component comprising one or more of smart traffic lights, smart intersections, or roadside sensors; a second smart infrastructure component comprising one or more of smart traffic lights, smart intersections, or roadside sensors ;a memory configured to store non-transitory computer- executable instructions and configured to interface with the one or more processors; and the one or more processors configured to interface with the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the non-transitory computer-executable instructions to cause the one or more processors to: receive, from the first smart infrastructure component, historical sensor data associated with a past vehicle collision; input the historical sensor data into a machine learning algorithm to train the machine learning algorithm to determine a percentage of fault for human drivers or self-driving vehicles; receive, from the second smart infrastructure component, current sensor data associated with a current vehicle collision; and input the current sensor data into the machine learning algorithm to determine a percentage of fault of the current vehicle collision for a human driver or a self- driving vehicle. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as business relations. Also, the claim limitations are managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. Lastly, the claim limitations that involve a machine learning model are mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer system, first and second smart infrastructure components, memory, sensors, smart traffic lights, smart intersections, roadside sensors, self-driving vehicle, network interface, new block and blockchain. The additional elements of a computer system, first and second smart infrastructure components, memory, sensors, smart traffic lights, smart intersections, roadside sensors, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of the network interface are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the new block and blockchain are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
Next, the claim is next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (computer system, first and second smart infrastructure components, memory, sensors, smart traffic lights, smart intersections, roadside sensors, self-driving vehicle, network interface, new block and blockchain) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s and blockchain to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s and blockchain to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 17 recites create a new blockchain corresponding to the current vehicle collision, wherein the new blockchain includes the determined percentage of fault. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of computer system and processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 15 analysis above. Also, these limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of a blockchain are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application). Further, the additional element of block and blockchain in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions generally linking the use of blockchain to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions generally linking the use of blockchain to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 18 recites wherein the current sensor data further includes data generated by a vehicle not involved in the current vehicle collision. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of computer system and sensor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 15 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 15, supra.
Claim 19 recites receive an electronic notification of the current vehicle collision generated by the vehicle from analysis of the current sensor data generated by one or more vehicle-mounted sensors. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of computer system and processor, sensor and vehicle mounted sensors are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 15 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 15, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently amended claims are a practical application, and that the claims securely recording and preserve fault determination for insurance claims in a distributed ledger, as well as wirelessly receiving of real-time data generated contemporaneously with current vehicle collision. Examiner disagrees. The currently recited claims o creating a new block and storing that block in a blockchain are a high-level apply it.
In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, the claims were found eligible as they reflected improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e. a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In Finjan, the claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” were found to provide greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The currently recited claims recite how a typical machine learning model works, using specific attributes and parameters. However, the claims do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of computer functions. Although a machine learning model is used for the purposes of determining an insurance claim with data collection following a claim incident, such uses is both generic and conventional. The object of the claims is to determine an insurance claim with data collection following a claim incident, does not produce technology enabling a machine learning model to operate. The claims call for generic use of such a machine learning model in the manner such models conventionally operate. Simply reciting a particular technological module or piece of equipment in a claim does not confer eligibility. The MPEP notes this distinction.
The MPEP notes this distinction (For example, in MPEP 2106.05(f)(I), it states: Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743). In the instant application, the currently recited claims use machine learning as generic data processing.
The currently recited claims, including the machine learning model, are recited at a high level, and are still at an “apply it” as results based. Additionally, the “training” of the machine learning model is used to provide the abstract idea. In other words, the “training” is done at such a high level that it amounts to apply it (results based) and also uses generic training in its ordinary capacity, with the only difference being the data.
Regarding Example 42, the currently recites claims are not synonymous as Example 42 dealt with transforming non-standardized information into a standardized format for medical records, as opposed to the currently recited claim limitations.
Lastly, the claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims determine an insurance claim with data collection following a claim incident, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Examiner notes, without regard to the specification or potential allowability of the claims, that it may benefit the applicant to more clearly define the sensor data and arrangement, as well as the smart infrastructure and smart vehicle, and any potential similarity to a “Thales” arrangement of the sensors, and to more positively recite the sensors and infrastructure, as to avoid just receiving data, inputting the data, and making a determination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights