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
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 2/3/2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are currently amended.
Therefore, claims 1-21 are pending and addressed below.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-21 are directed to a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…first training data comprising historical correspondences between examples of images and attributes of a plurality of vehicles damaged in collision events and indicators of physical damage sustained by the plurality of vehicles during the collision events; second training data comprising historical correspondences between examples of the indicators of physical damage sustained by the plurality of vehicles during the collision events, physical damage claim data related to the plurality of vehicles and the collision events, and bodily injury claim data related to occupants of the plurality of vehicles during the collision events and corresponding examples of cost to repair each of the plurality of vehicles and a projected cost to treat bodily injury sustained by each of the occupants during the collision events; obtaining images and attributes of a damaged vehicle that has been damaged in a collision event; generating based on the first inference input, a first output comprising indicators of physical damage sustained by the damaged vehicle during the collision event; the second inference input comprising the indicators of physical damage sustained by the damaged vehicle during the collision event, damaged vehicle physical damage claim data related to the damaged vehicle and the collision event, and bodily injury claim data related to an occupant of the damaged vehicle during the collision event; generating based on the second inference input, a second output comprising a projected cost to repair the damaged vehicle and a projected cost to treat bodily injury sustained by an occupant of the damaged vehicle during the collision event; and providing the projected cost to repair the damaged vehicle and a projected cost to treat the bodily injury sustained by the occupant during the collision event to an analyst for use in evaluating a bodily injury claim related to the occupant of the damaged vehicle and the collision event and a damaged vehicle physical damage claim related to the collision event”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. providing the projected costs to an analyst for use in evaluating the claim events) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices 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.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claimed of one or more hardware processors and one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…training …a computer vision machine learning model with first training data; training …a regression machine learning model with second training data; obtaining …images and attributes; providing …the obtained images and attributes …as first inference input to the computer vision machine learning model; generating…a first output; generating …a second inference input; providing …the second inference input to the regression machine learning model; generating…a second output; and providing… the projected cost to an analyst…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, nothing more than specifying the type of data used to train the machine learning models, generating the outputs and providing the projected costs to the analyst. The machine learning models are merely being used as tools for analyzing the data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the one or more hardware processors and the one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…training …a computer vision machine learning model with first training data; training …a regression machine learning model with second training data; obtaining …images and attributes; providing …the obtained images and attributes …as first inference input to the computer vision machine learning model; generating…a first output; generating …a second inference input; providing …the second inference input to the regression machine learning model; generating…a second output; and providing… the projected cost to an analyst…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Thus, nothing more than specifying the type of data used to train the machine learning models, generating the outputs and providing the projected costs to the analyst. The machine learning models are merely being used as tools for analyzing the data. The machine learning models are merely being used as tools for analyzing the data. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1. Thus, the claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are dependent on claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 further recite the limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 recite the limitations do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-21 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued that: “…Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea. The Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses the rejection. However, and without conceding the propriety of the rejection, amendments have been made herein that are thought to fully address the reasons for the rejection or otherwise render the rejection moot” (Please see the remarks on page 13).
Answer: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above that the claim recites the limitations of “…first training data comprising historical correspondences between examples of images and attributes of a plurality of vehicles damaged in collision events and indicators of physical damage sustained by the plurality of vehicles during the collision events; second training data comprising historical correspondences between examples of the indicators of physical damage sustained by the plurality of vehicles during the collision events, physical damage claim data related to the plurality of vehicles and the collision events, and bodily injury claim data related to occupants of the plurality of vehicles during the collision events and corresponding examples of cost to repair each of the plurality of vehicles and a projected cost to treat bodily injury sustained by each of the occupants during the collision events; obtaining images and attributes of a damaged vehicle that has been damaged in a collision event; generating based on the first inference input, a first output comprising indicators of physical damage sustained by the damaged vehicle during the collision event; the second inference input comprising the indicators of physical damage sustained by the damaged vehicle during the collision event, damaged vehicle physical damage claim data related to the damaged vehicle and the collision event, and bodily injury claim data related to an occupant of the damaged vehicle during the collision event; generating based on the second inference input, a second output comprising a projected cost to repair the damaged vehicle and a projected cost to treat bodily injury sustained by an occupant of the damaged vehicle during the collision event; and providing the projected cost to repair the damaged vehicle and a projected cost to treat the bodily injury sustained by the occupant during the collision event to an analyst for use in evaluating a bodily injury claim related to the occupant of the damaged vehicle and the collision event and a damaged vehicle physical damage claim related to the collision event”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. providing the projected costs to an analyst for use in evaluating the claim events) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices 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.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claimed of one or more hardware processors and one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…training …a computer vision machine learning model with first training data; training …a regression machine learning model with second training data; obtaining …images and attributes; providing …the obtained images and attributes …as first inference input to the computer vision machine learning model; generating…a first output; generating …a second inference input; providing …the second inference input to the regression machine learning model; generating…a second output; and providing… the projected cost to an analyst…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, nothing more than specifying the type of data used to train the machine learning models, generating the outputs and providing the projected costs to the analyst. The machine learning models are merely being used as tools for analyzing the data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Appellant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights