DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on March 20, 2026. Amendments to claims 19-20 filed on March 20, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending, and have been examined. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments. The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter (over prior art) was already discussed in the Office action mailed on November 12, 2025 and hence to 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 computing system and method for determining a repair estimate for the damage to the vehicle (in the context of insurance), which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice such as insurance, and also 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, claim 1 is directed to a computing system.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more storage devices that store instruction code that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the computing system to perform operations comprising:
causing a remote user device to display instructions that indicate how a plurality of acceptable images of a vehicle, and for determining by a machine learning algorithm configured to determine a severity of damage to a vehicle and a cost to repair damage, a severity of damage to a vehicle and a cost to repair damage to the vehicle, should be captured, wherein receiving the plurality of acceptable images comprises iteratively, and until a sufficient quantity of acceptable images is received:
receiving, via the remote user device, one or more images, wherein at least one of the one or more images corresponds to a three-dimensional image;
determining, based on a blurriness of each of the one or more images, whether each of the one or more images is acceptable for use with the machine learning algorithm;
adding acceptable images of the one or more images to the plurality of acceptable images; and
after determining that one or more of the one or more images are unacceptable images, causing the remote user device to display instructions that indicate how to capture images related to damage to the vehicle;
after receiving the sufficient quantity of acceptable images, determining, based on one or more acceptable images of the plurality of acceptable images, damage information comprising a location of damage on the vehicle and an indication of severity of damage on the vehicle; and
determining a repair estimate for the damage to the vehicle” 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 such as insurance, as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
Determining a repair estimate for the damage to the vehicle (in the context of insurance) is a fundamental economic practice such as insurance. Determining a repair estimate for the damage to the vehicle is also a form of fulfilling/resolving agreements in the context of an insurance policy and hence a form of commercial or legal interactions.
That is, other than, a computing system comprising one or more processors one or more storage devices; a remote user device, and a machine learning algorithm, 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 computing system comprising one or more processors one or more storage devices; a remote user device, and a machine learning algorithm to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-8 and descriptions in at least paragraphs [021] – [029] reveals that the computing system comprising one or more processors one or more storage devices may be a suitably programmed generic system with suitably programmed generic processors and suitably programmed generic storage devices. The remote user device may be a generic user device such as personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices etc. The machine learning algorithm are broadly interpreted to include generic software suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. 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, 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 claims 1, 10 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 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 2-4, 11-13 and 20 the steps “wherein the instructions indicating how to capture the plurality of images comprise an instruction to capture an image of a portion of the vehicle”, “wherein the instructions indicating how to capture the plurality of images comprise an instruction to capture an image of damage to the vehicle”, and “wherein the instructions indicating how to capture the plurality of images comprise an instruction to capture an image of a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle” 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 5 and 14, the step “further comprising determining, based on the damage information and using machine learning, whether an area adjacent to the location of damage on the vehicle will require refinishing” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes an intermediate step of the underlying process.
In claims 6 and 15, the step “wherein the instruction code causes the computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a text description of damage to the vehicle” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the data used in the underlying process.
In claims 7-8 and 16-17, the steps “wherein determining the repair estimate comprises comparing the determined location of damage and severity of damage to a database of prior vehicle repair costs”, and “further comprising determining a confidence factor for the comparison of the determined location of damage and severity of damage to the database of prior vehicle repair costs” 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 9 and 18, the step “further comprising displaying, on the remote user device, a settlement proposal for settling the insurance claim associated with the damage to the vehicle” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes an intermediate step and/or final step of the underlying process.
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. 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.
5. Claims 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,878 (hereafter ‘878). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
For instance, claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘878 recites all the limitations of claim 19 namely
“A computer-implemented method comprising:
causing a remote user device to display instructions that indicate how a plurality of acceptable images of a vehicle, and for determining by a machine learning algorithm configured to determine a severity of damage to a vehicle and a cost to repair damage, a severity of damage to a vehicle and a cost to repair damage to the vehicle, should be captured, wherein receiving the plurality of acceptable images comprises iteratively, and until a sufficient quantity of acceptable images is received:
receiving, via the remote user device, one or more images, wherein at least one of the one or more images corresponds to a three-dimensional image;
determining, based on a blurriness of each of the one or more images, whether each of the one or more images is acceptable for use with the machine learning algorithm;
adding acceptable images of the one or more images to the plurality of acceptable images; and
after determining that one or more of the one or more images are unacceptable images, causing the remote user device to display instructions that indicate how to capture images related to damage to the vehicle;
after receiving the sufficient quantity of acceptable images, determining, based on one or more acceptable images of the plurality of acceptable images, damage information comprising a location of damage on the vehicle and an indication of severity of damage on the vehicle; and
determining a repair estimate for the damage to the vehicle”.
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘878 recites all the limitations of claim 20 namely “wherein the instructions indicating how to capture the images comprise an instruction to capture an image of a portion of the vehicle”.
Response to Arguments
6. In response to Applicants arguments on pages 8-10 of the Applicant’s remarks (filed on March 12, 2026) 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 computing system and method for determining a repair estimate for the damage to the vehicle (in the context of insurance), which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice such as insurance, and also commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed in the rejection.
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the Applicants claims and that of Claim 1 of PEG Example 1. The steps of “determining blurriness, iteratively filtering acceptable/ unacceptable images, and using those images with machine learning algorithms” , may be characterized as an improvement in the abstract idea of determining a repair estimate for the damage to the vehicle (in the context of insurance) using the additional elements as tools in their ordinary capacity. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 claims only recite the additional elements of a computing system comprising one or more processors one or more storage devices; a remote user device, and a machine learning algorithm to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-8 and descriptions in at least paragraphs [021] – [029] reveals that the computing system comprising one or more processors one or more storage devices may be a suitably programmed generic system with suitably programmed generic processors and suitably programmed generic storage devices. The remote user device may be a generic user device such as personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices etc. The machine learning algorithm are broadly interpreted to include generic software suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. 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, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claimed limitations of “the operation of computer-implemented machine learning logic for analyzing an article based on images depends on the quality of those images, and that improving the quality of those images (e.g., by removing blurry images) ….. filtering images for more efficient ML processing ….. ensuring image quality sufficient for machine learning analysis without requiring in-person inspection”, may be characterized as an improvement in the abstract idea of determining a repair estimate for the damage to the vehicle (in the context of insurance) using the additional elements as tools in their ordinary capacity. 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). As discussed in the rejection, the additional elements (identified in the rejection) are suitably programmed generic computer components used to apply the 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 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 claimed steps including those recited on page 9 such as “providing an iterative feedback loop, e.g., receiving images, assessing blurriness, conditional instruction display, and repeating until sufficient quality/quantity is achieved, assessing acceptability with a machine learning algorithm, and adjusting instructions based on image quality assessment” may at best be characterized as an improvement in the abstract idea of determining a repair estimate for the damage to the vehicle (in the context of insurance) using the combination of additional elements as tools in their ordinary capacity. Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Painter; Scott et al. (US Pub. 2024/0095841 A1) discloses systems and methods for adjusting insurance premiums. Embodiments provide systems and methods for providing a time-based adjustment to insurance premiums, as well as premium adjustment, and risk management. Some embodiments use collected data, such as telematics to take in data and determine, on a periodic basis, when a vehicle is actually moving and when it is not. In some embodiments, an insurance policy can be adjusted in real-time based on driving behaviors or restrictions. In some embodiments, an insurance policy can be adjusted in real-time to accommodate multi-driver situations.
(b) Madigan; Regina et al. (US Patent 12,014,422 B1) discloses systems and methods for automatically changing or updating insurance coverage using a computer device. An insurance analyzer may receive data associated with an insurance user. The insurance analyzer may determine types of insurance coverage available and coverage amounts associated with the received user data. Based on the received data the insurance analyzer may automatically activate insurance coverage based on determined types of insurance available and coverage amounts. The insurance analyzer may also deactivate insurance coverage or change insurance coverage amounts based on determined user activity.
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to 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
March 29, 2026