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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to an amendment received on 2/5/26 for patent application 18/828,117.
2. Claims 82,84, 85-87, 91-93, 95, 98,100 are amended.
3. Claims 83,99,101 are cancelled.
4. Claims 102-104 are new.
5. Claims 82, 84-98, 100, 102-104 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Rejections Under 35 USC § 101
The Examiner rejects claims 82-101 under 35 USC § 101 due to the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection, and expressly denies that the claims, as previously presented, recite an abstract idea. Nevertheless, to expedite prosecution, the Applicant has made a modest amendment to the claims to address the Examiner's concern. The Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, as amended, are allowable under 35 USC § 101.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amendments to the claims are still reciting the identified abstract idea (A mental process, steps for guiding a human investigator through an investigation).
Based on the amendments to the independent claims, the claims are now also reciting a fundamental economic practice (insurance), see the section 101 rejection below.
Applicant argues#2
Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. The Applicant reminds the Examiner that a rejection under 35 USC §103 includes, inter alia, providing references that together teach the limitations of the claims. The Applicant does not admit to the Examiner's characterization of the claims or of the cited reference. Furthermore, the Applicant expressly denies that the claims, as previously presented, are obvious in view of the cited references.
Nevertheless, to expedite prosecution, the Applicant has amended claim 1 to clarify the subject matter, and to illustrate inherent differences between the claim and the cited references. Claim 1, as amended, recites inter alia that the method is performed in connection with an insurance investigation, and clarifies that the claim provides an interactive experience wherein the human insurance investigation conducts the interview.
Upon review, the cited references, taken alone or together, do not appear to disclose this limitation. Applicant therefore submits that the claim, as amended, is allowable under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Applicant respectfully requests notice to this effect.
The other independent claims recite limitations similar, but not identical to, claim 1.
These claims are allowable for analogous reasons, e.g., because the cited references do not teach the claim limitations. Furthermore, the dependent claims that depend from these claims are also allowable, as depending from an allowable base claim. The Applicant respectfully requests notice to this effect.
Examiner Response
Based on the claim amendments, and in view of an updated prior art search, the prior art of record alone or in combination does not teach at least a human insurance investigator being prompted by an generative artificial intelligence (GAI) with questions for the human, where the insurance agent interviews the human to determine liability for an insurance event based on the prompts received from the GAI.
The 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
6. Claims 82, 84-98, 100, 102-104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method, system and computer readable medium which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative claim 82 recites the limitations of:
One or more tangible, nontransitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions to instruct one or more processors to:
assist a human investigator with conducting an investigation of an insurance accident for accessing liability for an insured or a third party, including based on already collected records related to the insurance incident, access a generative artificial intelligence (GAI) trained to generate investigative question prompts to guide the human investigator, wherein the investigative question prompts are to prompt the human insurance investigator in asking probative and open-ended questions, related to accessing the liability of a human interview subject who is a participant in or witness to the insurance incident;
interactively display the investigative question prompts to the human insurance investigator during an interview connected with the investigation; transcribe responses from the human interview subject; and suggest follow up questions from the investigation.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, (e.g., assist a human investigator with conducting an investigation of an insurance accident for accessing liability for an insured or a third party, including based on already collected records related to the insurance incident, to generate investigative question prompts to guide the human investigator, wherein the investigative question prompts are to prompt the human insurance investigator in asking probative and open-ended questions, related to accessing the liability of a human interview subject who is a participant in or witness to the insurance incident; and interactively display the investigative question prompts to the human insurance investigator during an interview connected with the investigation; transcribe responses from the human interview subject; and suggest follow up questions from the investigation), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically a concept performed mentally by a human with a pen and paper (steps for guiding a human investigator through an investigation).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition claim 82 recites a fundamental economic practice of insurance (assist a human investigator with conducting an investigation of an insurance accident for accessing liability for an insured or a third party, including based on already collected records related to the insurance incident, to generate investigative question prompts to guide the human investigator, wherein the investigative question prompts are to prompt the human insurance investigator in asking probative and open-ended questions, related to accessing the liability of a human interview subject who is a participant in or witness to the insurance incident; and interactively display the investigative question prompts to the human insurance investigator during an interview connected with the investigation; transcribe responses from the human interview subject; and suggest follow up questions from the investigation), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a fundamental economic practice (insurance, mitigating risk). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 82 recites an abstract idea. Claims 98,100 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 82 and are abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 82,98, 100 includes the following additional elements:
-A non-transitory computer readable medium
-One or more processors
-Generative artificial intelligence
-A device
-A hardware platform comprising a processing circuit, a memory and a display device
-Interactive display device
The non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more processors, generative artificial intelligence, device, hardware platform comprising a processing circuit, a memory and a display device and interactive display device are recited at a high level of generality and being used in its ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Therefore, there are no additional elements in the claim that amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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. Therefore claims 82,98, 100 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, with the use of generic computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 82,98, 100 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 84-97, 102-104 which further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 82,98,100 and thus correspond to a Mental process and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Claim 91 recites the additional element of an AI system. The AI system is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its ordinary capacity and is being used as a tool to steps the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 92-93, recite the additional element of an interactive display includes images with a human markup capability. The “interactive display” is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its ordinary capacity and is being used as a tool to steps the identified abstract idea.
Claim 97, recites the additional element of the GAI comprising a large language model or generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) is is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its ordinary capacity and is being used as a tool to steps the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims 84-97, 102-104 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 82, 84-98, 100, 102-104 are not patent-eligible.
CONCLUSION
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 MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
3/18/2026