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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 18/887,989 entitled "COMPUTER SOFTWARE, COMPUTER SYSTEM, COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR PREPARING INSURANCE CLAIMS PACKAGE AND INSURANCE CLAIMS PACKAGE PREPARED BY SAME" originally filed on September 17, 2024, with claims 1 to 28 pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 30, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reads, “…repairing the damaged vehicle in accordance a settled insurance claim” rather than “…repairing the damaged vehicle in accordance with a settled insurance claim.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-13, and 26-28 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 14-25 are NOT directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, nor composition of matter. Therefore, they fall within a non-statutory category of invention. (Step 1: NO). See MPEP 2104. For the purposes of compact prosecution the claims are further analyzed under Steps 2A and 2B.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A …method for preparing an insurance claims settlement package for submission to an insurance company, the method … and comprising:
positioning an electronic grid overlay over an image file of a vehicle collision damage repair plan for a damaged vehicle, wherein the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan displays at least one work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle;
positioning at least one electronic evidence region within the electronic grid overlay over a selected work operation displayed by the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan;
selecting at least one evidence item stored …relating a particular work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle; and
electronically linking the selected at least one evidence item to the evidence region overlaying the particular work operation displayed on the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing insurance claims. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “preparing an insurance claims settlement package for submission to an insurance company” and “selecting at least one evidence item … for repairing the damaged vehicle” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice 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 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer-implemented] [carried out by computer software executed by one or more processors][in a computer storage medium]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0034] the initial repair plan and preliminary cost estimate is generated using any suitable industry standard software program for preparing cost estimates and repair plans in the vehicle collision repair industry.
[0076] The executable computer software for preparing and viewing the insurance claims package may be stored on one or more suitable computer readable media of any one or more of a wide variety of computing devices....suitable computing devices may be selected from a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a tablet computer, a smartbook, a smart telephone, a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA),...a file server
[0079] the term “database” refers to any data structure for storing and/or organizing data communicated to the database. The database may be a relational database (for example, Oracle database, mySQL database, and the like), spreadsheets, XML files, and text file, and the like.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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. Therefore, Claim 1 is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 2-13:
“computer-implemented”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 26:
“non-transitory computer-readable storage media coupled to one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the operations”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 27:
“computer system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the operations”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0034] the initial repair plan and preliminary cost estimate is generated using any suitable industry standard software program for preparing cost estimates and repair plans in the vehicle collision repair industry.
[0076] The executable computer software for preparing and viewing the insurance claims package may be stored on one or more suitable computer readable media of any one or more of a wide variety of computing devices....suitable computing devices may be selected from a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a tablet computer, a smartbook, a smart telephone, a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA),...a file server
[0079] the term “database” refers to any data structure for storing and/or organizing data communicated to the database. The database may be a relational database (for example, Oracle database, mySQL database, and the like), spreadsheets, XML files, and text file, and the like.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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. Therefore, the claim is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. 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 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 14 recites:
“An electronic insurance claims settlement package for a damaged vehicle comprising:
an electronic image file composed of data relating to a damaged vehicle and including at least one damage repair operation displayed by said electronic image;
an electronic overlay grid overlaying at least a portion of said electronic image file;
at least one evidence region positioned within said overlay grid; and
at least one evidence item electronically linked to said at least one evidence region.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing insurance claims. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “an electronic insurance claims settlement package for a damaged vehicle” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice 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 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims DO NOT recite the additional elements.
Any alleged additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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. Therefore, Claim 14 is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 15-25 DO NOT recite additional elements and merely narrow the abstract idea.
Independent Claim 28 recites:
“A method of repairing vehicle collision damage comprising:
receiving …having collision damage;
inspecting …to determine said collision damage;
collecting evidence items relating to the collision damage …and to the repair…;
preparing an electronic insurance claims settlement package, said package comprising an electronic image file composed of data [relating to a damaged vehicle] and including at least one damage repair operation displayed by said electronic image, an electronic overlay grid overlaying at least a portion of said electronic image file, at least one evidence region positioned within said overlay grid and at least one evidence item electronically linked to said at least one evidence region;
submitting the electronic insurance claims settlement package to an insurance company for settlement of an insurance claim…; and
repairing …in accordance a settled insurance claim.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing insurance claims. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “an electronic insurance claims settlement package for a damaged vehicle” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice 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 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[a vehicle] [the vehicle] [to the vehicle] [of the damaged vehicle] [relating to the damaged vehicle] [the damaged vehicle]:
merely applying automotive vehicle technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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. Therefore, Claim 28 is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10-14, 18, 19, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li ("AUTOMATIC ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE AND REPAIR COSTS IN VEHICLES", U.S. Publication Number: 20180260793 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Li teaches,
A computer-implemented method for preparing an insurance claims settlement package for submission to an insurance company, the method carried out by computer software executed by one or more processors and comprising:
(Li [0057] The automatic vehicle damage assessment system is a first-of-its-kind system that leverages state-of-the-art computer vision and machine learning technologies to partially or fully automate the auto claims submission and settlement process
Li [0002] the estimate is forwarded to an insurance company to approve the repairs)
positioning an electronic grid overlay over an image file of a vehicle collision damage repair plan for a damaged vehicle,
(Li [0048] camera matrix that maps anchor points of a 3D model to corresponding 2D projections in an image
Li [Claim 1] based on the one or more images to generate one or more damage detection images, wherein each damage detection image is a two-dimensional (2D) image that includes indications of areas of damage to the vehicle in the damage detection image
Li [Abstract] estimating a repair cost for a vehicle...calculating an estimated repair cost for the vehicle...based on accessing a parts database that includes repair and labor costs for each part in the first and second sets of parts.)
wherein the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan displays at least one work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle;
(Li [0063] Using a variety of computer vision techniques, the system recognizes where and how the received images depart from the reference images, and identifies the corresponding part(s) and/or regions on the exterior of the vehicle that are damaged.)
positioning at least one electronic evidence region within the electronic grid overlay over a selected work operation displayed by the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan;
(Li [0041] illustrates projecting the 3D model onto an image of a vehicle
Li [0298] the silhouette (i.e., boundary of 2D projection on image plane) of the 3D model should be seamlessly overlapped with the boundary of the real vehicle.)
selecting at least one evidence item stored in a computer storage medium relating a particular work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle; and
(Li [0271] the server performs damage localization to determine where the damage is localized on the 2D image of the vehicle. The goal of this step is to determine which portions of a damaged part are damaged)
electronically linking the selected at least one evidence item to the evidence region overlaying the particular work operation displayed on the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan.
(Li [0061] ““metadata” about the vehicle are also available and stored in a database accessible by the server. The metadata includes at least the vehicle make, model, and year. The metadata may optionally include images of the vehicle prior to the occurrence of damage.”
Li [0239] “In one implementation of the CNN model, each image in the training dataset is tagged with metadata identifying the pose of the vehicle in the image and indications of which parts are visible as damaged in the image and/or the severity of the damage to those parts. An interface tool like the one shown in FIG. 29 can be used to manually tag each image, in one embodiment. In other embodiments, the tagging can be performed automatically by an image processing system. In such embodiments, the interface tool could be used to verify or edit the automatically created tags.” )
Regarding Claim 5,
Li teaches the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Li teaches,
wherein the perimeter of the electronic grid overlay are generated to be substantially coextensive with the perimeter of the underlying image of the repair plan.
(Li [0298] the silhouette (i.e., boundary of 2D projection on image plane) of the 3D model should be seamlessly overlapped with the boundary of the real vehicle.
Figure 45
PNG
media_image1.png
538
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 49
PNG
media_image2.png
468
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 50
PNG
media_image3.png
584
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 52
PNG
media_image4.png
524
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding Claim 6,
Li teaches the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Li teaches,
wherein the perimeter of the electronic evidence region is generated to be substantially coextensive with the perimeter of the underlying selected work operation displayed on the image of the repair plan.
(Li [0298] the silhouette (i.e., boundary of 2D projection on image plane) of the 3D model should be seamlessly overlapped with the boundary of the real vehicle.
Li [0159] an outline 1902 is displayed for the hood of the vehicle superimposed on a live camera view from the client device. The user can then position the camera of the client device so that the hood of the car aligns with the outline
Li [Claim 1] calculating an estimated repair cost for the vehicle based on the damaged 3D model)
Regarding Claim 10,
Li teaches the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Li teaches,
wherein the at least one evidence item may be selected from audibly and visually perceptible data items.
(Li [0239] “metadata identifying the pose of the vehicle in the image and indications of which parts are visible … the tagging can be performed automatically by an image processing system.”
tags are visually perceptible – see Li [Figure 29]:
PNG
media_image5.png
520
862
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding Claim 11,
Li teaches the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 10 as described earlier.
Li teaches,
wherein the visually perceptible data items are selected from digital images of damaged regions of a vehicle, digital videos of damaged regions of vehicle, digital images of replacement parts, digital images of hardware for replacement parts, and documents.
(Li [0058] images (e.g., photos or videos) showing damage to the vehicle are captured
Li [0056] the captured images include not only still images, but also video, LIDAR imagery, and/or imagery from other modalities
Li [0091] image segmentation into vehicle parts
Li [0129] (i.e., image segmentation), the cleaned image of the damaged vehicle is segmented into vehicle parts, i.e., the boundaries of the vehicle parts are determined and drawn
Li [0348] as in a “.obj” file)
Regarding Claim 12,
Li teaches the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 11 as described earlier.
Li teaches,
wherein the digital images of damaged regions of the vehicle are selected from front bumper, hood, roof of passenger cabin, trunk, rear bumper, driver's side front side panel, driver's side front door, driver's side rear door, driver's side rear panel, passenger side front side panel, passenger side front door, passenger side rear door, passenger side rear panel and rear bumper of the exterior body of the vehicle.
(Li [0196-0220] a vehicle is divided up into twenty-four (24) exterior parts, and thus, twenty-four (24) vehicle part CNNs, including:Pr1=‘Front Bumper’;Pr2=‘Back Bumper’;Pr3=‘Front Windshield’;Pr4=‘Back Windshield’;Pr5=‘Hood’;Pr6=‘Car Top’;Pr7=‘Front Grill’;Pr8=‘Left Front Fender’;Pr9=‘Left Front Headlight’;Pr10=‘Left Side’;Pr11=‘Left Back Headlight’;Pr12=‘Left Front Window’;Pr13=‘Left Back Window’;Pr14=‘Left Front Door’;Pr15=‘Left Back Door’;Pr16=‘Right Front Fender’;Pr17=‘Right Front Headlight’;Pr18=‘Right Side’;Pr19=‘Right Back Headlight’;Pr20=‘Right Front Window’;Pr21=‘Right Back Window’;Pr22=‘Right Front Door’;Pr23=‘Right Back Door’; and Pr24=‘Trunk’.)
Regarding Claim 13,
Li teaches the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 11 as described earlier.
Li teaches,
wherein the documents are selected from Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) replacement part documents, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) repair information or instructions, Non-Original Equipment Manufacturer (Non-OEM) replacement part documents, or Non-Original Equipment Manufacturer (Non-OEM) repair information or instructions.
(Li [0128] three-dimensional models of various vehicles can be purchased from commercial providers of three-dimensional renderings of objects, including the vehicle manufacturers themselves.
Li [0066] A comprehensive damaged parts list is then generated to prepare an estimate of the cost required to repair the vehicle by looking up in a parts database for parts and labor cost.
Li [0231] cost estimation engine 2510 can look up in a database the corresponding cost for repair or replacement of each of the external and internal parts based on make, model, year, and color of the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 14,
Li teaches,
an electronic image file composed of data relating to a damaged vehicle and including at least one damage repair operation displayed by said electronic image; an electronic overlay grid overlaying at least a portion of said electronic image file; at least one evidence region positioned within said overlay grid; and
(Li [0041] illustrates projecting the 3D model onto an image of a vehicle
Li [0298] the silhouette (i.e., boundary of 2D projection on image plane) of the 3D model should be seamlessly overlapped with the boundary of the real vehicle.
Li [0271] the server performs damage localization to determine where the damage is localized on the 2D image of the vehicle. The goal of this step is to determine which portions of a damaged part are damaged)
at least one evidence item electronically linked to said at least one evidence region.
(Li [0063] system recognizes where and how the received images depart from the reference images, and identifies the corresponding part(s) and/or regions on the exterior of the vehicle that are damaged
Li [0093] server infers internal damage to the vehicle from detected external damage. Once the externally damaged parts are identified, the server can look up in a database which internal parts are also likely to be replaced
Figure 52
PNG
media_image4.png
524
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claim 22 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Claim 25 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Claim 26 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 27 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 15-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ("AUTOMATIC ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE AND REPAIR COSTS IN VEHICLES", U.S. Publication Number: 20180260793 A1),in view of Tsibulevskiy (“TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220319219 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Li teaches the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Li does not teach wherein the electronic overlay grid is transparent.
Tsibulevskiy teaches,
wherein the electronic overlay grid is transparent.
(Tsibulevskiy [0019] that a shape has been placed around or to enclose the reference... a rectangle, a box,... Note that the shape or delineation thereof can be solid, broken, translucent, transparent, or opaque, any of which can be colored for visual distinction.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insurance claims settlement preparation of Li to incorporate the content analysis technologies of Tsibulevskiy where elements “can be filtered based on patent classification, figure image analysis, figure object analysis, … or other document related content, metadata, or tags,.” (Tsibulevskiy [0338]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. content analysis technologies) to a known concept (i.e. insurance claims settlement preparation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The first content item can include a pixel or voxel image, a still image, a medical imaging image, a photo, a computer aided design (CAD) drawing, a video, a pattern within an image, a feature within an image, a detected object within an image, … an animate or inanimate or stationary or movable physical structure (e.g., … land vehicle, marine vehicle, aerial vehicle) within an image” Tsibulevskiy [0355])
Regarding Claim 3,
Li teaches the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Li does not teach wherein said evidence regions are semi-transparent.
Tsibulevskiy teaches,
wherein said evidence regions are semi-transparent.
(Tsibulevskiy [0019] that a shape has been placed around or to enclose the reference......Note that the shape or delineation thereof can be solid, broken, translucent, transparent, or opaque, any of which can be colored for visual distinction.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insurance claims settlement preparation of Li to incorporate the content analysis technologies of Tsibulevskiy where elements “can be filtered based on patent classification, figure image analysis, figure object analysis, … or other document related content, metadata, or tags,.” (Tsibulevskiy [0338]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. content analysis technologies) to a known concept (i.e. insurance claims settlement preparation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The first content item can include a pixel or voxel image, a still image, a medical imaging image, a photo, a computer aided design (CAD) drawing, a video, a pattern within an image, a feature within an image, a detected object within an image, … an animate or inanimate or stationary or movable physical structure (e.g., … land vehicle, marine vehicle, aerial vehicle) within an image” Tsibulevskiy [0355])
Regarding Claim 4,
Li and Tsibulevskiy teach the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 3 as described earlier.
Li teaches,
of a vehicle damage repair operations displayed on the image.
(Li [Abstract] estimating a repair cost for a vehicle...calculating an estimated repair cost for the vehicle...based on accessing a parts database that includes repair and labor costs for each part in the first and second sets of parts.
Li [Claim 1] based on the one or more images to generate one or more damage detection images)
Li does not teach wherein said evidence regions are semi-transparent and colored to correspond to an operation or step
Tsibulevskiy teaches,
wherein said evidence regions are semi-transparent and colored
(Tsibulevskiy [0019] that a shape has been placed around or to enclose the reference......Note that the shape or delineation thereof can be solid, broken, translucent, transparent, or opaque, any of which can be colored for visual distinction....can be colored for visual distinction)
to correspond to an operation or step
(Tsibulevskiy [0155] a figure-based search for part names within a specific document (or a group of documents or files or pages or figures) may result in a color-based distinction between part names within that search (e.g., located part name or part number for that part name can be highlighted) or a color-based distinction between part names in a figure)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insurance claims settlement preparation of Li to incorporate the content analysis technologies of Tsibulevskiy where elements “can be filtered based on patent classification, figure image analysis, figure object analysis, … or other document related content, metadata, or tags,.” (Tsibulevskiy [0338]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. content analysis technologies) to a known concept (i.e. insurance claims settlement preparation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The first content item can include a pixel or voxel image, a still image, a medical imaging image, a photo, a computer aided design (CAD) drawing, a video, a pattern within an image, a feature within an image, a detected object within an image, … an animate or inanimate or stationary or movable physical structure (e.g., … land vehicle, marine vehicle, aerial vehicle) within an image” Tsibulevskiy [0355])
Regarding Claim 7,
Li teaches the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Li does not teach wherein the file format of the initial repair plan is generated in portable document format and is converted to an image file.
Tsibulevskiy teaches,
wherein the file format of the initial repair plan is generated in portable document format and is converted to an image file.
(Tsibulevskiy [0395] a conversion of an annotated figure sheet, with a part name (or analytic or other relevant information) being visible,... the file format can include PDF, PPT, DOC, JPEG, or others. For example, the conversion can result in the download of an image file (e.g., JPEG, PNG) that can be inserted into a word processing application...the conversion can include screenshotting or generating new image with annotations.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insurance claims settlement preparation of Li to incorporate the content analysis technologies of Tsibulevskiy where elements “can be filtered based on patent classification, figure image analysis, figure object analysis, … or other document related content, metadata, or tags,.” (Tsibulevskiy [0338]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. content analysis technologies) to a known concept (i.e. insurance claims settlement preparation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The first content item can include a pixel or voxel image, a still image, a medical imaging image, a photo, a computer aided design (CAD) drawing, a video, a pattern within an image, a feature within an image, a detected object within an image, … an animate or inanimate or stationary or movable physical structure (e.g., … land vehicle, marine vehicle, aerial vehicle) within an image” Tsibulevskiy [0355])
Regarding Claim 8,
Li and Tsibulevskiy teach the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 7 as described earlier.
Li teaches,
wherein the image file of the repair plan is selected
(Li [Abstract] estimating a repair cost for a vehicle...calculating an estimated repair cost for the vehicle...based on accessing a parts database that includes repair and labor costs for each part in the first and second sets of parts.
Li [Claim 1] based on the one or more images to generate one or more damage detection images)
Li does not teach from a compressed format image file, an uncompressed format image file, or a vector format image file.
Tsibulevskiy teaches,
from a compressed format image file, an uncompressed format image file, or a vector format image file.
(Tsibulevskiy [0079] e.g., stored in zip file....archive file, zip file...image files... changed format (e.g., JPEG to TIFF, PDF to JPG or TIFF))
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insurance claims settlement preparation of Li to incorporate the content analysis technologies of Tsibulevskiy where elements “can be filtered based on patent classification, figure image analysis, figure object analysis, … or other document related content, metadata, or tags,.” (Tsibulevskiy [0338]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. content analysis technologies) to a known concept (i.e. insurance claims settlement preparation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The first content item can include a pixel or voxel image, a still image, a medical imaging image, a photo, a computer aided design (CAD) drawing, a video, a pattern within an image, a feature within an image, a detected object within an image, … an animate or inanimate or stationary or movable physical structure (e.g., … land vehicle, marine vehicle, aerial vehicle) within an image” Tsibulevskiy [0355])
Regarding Claim 9,
Li and Tsibulevskiy teach the insurance claims settlement preparation of Claim 8 as described earlier.
Li does not teach wherein the image file formats are selected from JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group), JFIF (JPEG File Interchange Format), EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format), TIFF (Tagged Image File Format), GIF (Graphics Interchange Format), BMP (Bitmap), PNG (Portable Network Graphics), Portable PixMap format (PPM), Portable GrayMap format (PGM), and Portable BitMap format (PBM).
Tsibulevskiy teaches,
wherein the image file formats are selected from JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group), JFIF (JPEG File Interchange Format), EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format), TIFF (Tagged Image File Format), GIF (Graphics Interchange Format), BMP (Bitmap), PNG (Portable Network Graphics), Portable PixMap format (PPM), Portable GrayMap format (PGM), and Portable BitMap format (PBM).
(Tsibulevskiy [0079] changed format (e.g., JPEG to TIFF, PDF to JPG or TIFF))
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insurance claims settlement preparation of Li to incorporate the content analysis technologies of Tsibulevskiy where elements “can be filtered based on patent classification, figure image analysis, figure object analysis, … or other document related content, metadata, or tags,.” (Tsibulevskiy [0338]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. content analysis technologies) to a known concept (i.e. insurance claims settlement preparation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The first content item can include a pixel or voxel image, a still image, a medical imaging image, a photo, a computer aided design (CAD) drawing, a video, a pattern within an image, a feature within an image, a detected object within an image, … an animate or inanimate or stationary or movable physical structure (e.g., … land vehicle, marine vehicle, aerial vehicle) within an image” Tsibulevskiy [0355])
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Claim 21 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 9.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ("AUTOMATIC ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE AND REPAIR COSTS IN VEHICLES", U.S. Publication Number: 20180260793 A1),in view of Jimenez (“SYSTEM AND METHOD OF REAL-TIME IMAGING AND ANALYSIS OF REAL-WORLD OBJECTS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20160239922 A1)
Regarding Claim 28,
Li teaches,
receiving a vehicle having collision damage;
(Li [0002] after a vehicle has been damaged ... vehicle is taken by the owner or a tow company to an auto repair shop for inspection.)
inspecting the vehicle to determine said collision damage;
(Li [0002] Inspection of the vehicle by a mechanic at the auto repair shop is required)
collecting evidence items relating to the collision damage to the vehicle and to the repair of the damaged vehicle;
(Li [0005] one or more images of a damaged vehicle from a client computing device)
preparing an electronic insurance claims settlement package, said package comprising an electronic image file composed of data relating to a damaged vehicle
(Li [0068] Automatic determination of “total loss” claims can also lead to early settlement of the claim
Li [0006] performing computerized image processing based on the one or more images to generate one or more damage detection images, wherein each damage detection image is a two-dimensional (2D) image)
a settled insurance claim.
(Li [0068] efficiency of auto claims settlement processes. For example, automatic determination of “small value” claims can be settled rapidly)
Li does not teach including at least one damage repair operation displayed by said electronic image, an electronic overlay grid overlaying at least a portion of said electronic image file, at least one evidence region positioned within said overlay grid and at least one evidence item electronically linked to said at least one evidence region; submitting the electronic insurance claims settlement package to an insurance company for settlement of an insurance claim relating to the damaged vehicle; and repairing the damaged vehicle in accordance
Jimenez teaches,
including at least one damage repair operation displayed by said electronic image, an electronic overlay grid overlaying at least a portion of said electronic image file, at least one evidence region positioned within said overlay grid and at least one evidence item electronically linked to said at least one evidence region;
(Jimenez [0013] a two-dimensional array of pixels... a database containing body panels is accessed...Since the real-world OEM dimensions are known, real-world pixel size can be determined once the OEM body panel image is overlaid onto the damaged body panel image.
Jimenez [0017] Additional analysis of body panel gaps or shut lines can be performed by comparing to shut line information found in one or more databases. In this way, evidence of structural damage or shoddy repair work can be documented.
Jimenez [0024] The invention can be used to capture or scan 3D images of proposed sites. These captures or scans can then be overlaid by completed designs rendered)
submitting the electronic insurance claims settlement package to an insurance company for settlement of an insurance claim relating to the damaged vehicle;
(Jimenez [0022] If the user chooses to make an insurance claim, the user can be provided with a projected settlement, reducin