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 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" filed on February 17 2026, with claims 1-13, 26, 27, and 28 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 26, and 27 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 14-25 are cancelled.
Claims 1-13, 26, 27, and 28 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 17, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-13, 26 and 27 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 14, 2025.
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
Claims 1, 26, 27, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reads, “…regions within the electronic overlay gird” rather than “…regions within the electronic overlay grid.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13, 26, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5, 26, 27, and 28 recites the limitation "electronic grid overlay.” A similar object is described as “electronic overlay grid.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 1-13, 26, 27, and 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, 26, 27, and 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).
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 carried out …for preparing the insurance claims package, the operations comprising:
preparing an electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan for a damaged vehicle having at least one work operation for repairing said damaged vehicle;
preparing an image file of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan having an outer perimeter dimension, wherein the image of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan displays said at least one work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle;
…creating an electronic overlay grid and configuring the outer perimeter dimensions of the electronic overlay grid to be substantially coextensive with the outer perimeter dimension of the image of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan;
…creating and configuring the dimensions of at least one electronic overlay evidence region and coordinates of each of said at least one electronic overlay evidence region for positioning each of said at least one electronic overlay evidence regions within the electronic overlay gird;
positioning the electronic grid overlay over an image …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 overlay evidence region within the electronic grid overlay over a selected work operation displayed by the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan;
selecting an electronic overlay evidence region from the at least one electronic overlay evidence region relating to a particular work operation from the at least one work operation of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan;
selecting at least one evidence item relating to the particular work operation of the at least one work operation of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan for repairing the damaged vehicle from a list of evidence items stored [in a computer storage medium];
… linking the selected at least one evidence item to the electronic evidence overlay region overlaying the particular work operation of the vehicle collision damage repair plan;
and populating the selected at least one evidence item into the electronic evidence overlay region overlaying the particular work operation.”
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 the insurance claims package” and “selecting at least one evidence item relating to the particular work operation” 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] [by a computer system comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having executable software stored thereon, the method comprising executing the computer software to cause the one or more processors to perform operations] [electronically] [file]:
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 26 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1 with “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” as an additional element.
Independent Claim 27 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1 with “A 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” as an additional element.
Independent Claim 28 recites:
“A method of repairing vehicle collision damage comprising:
(a) receiving …having collision damage;
(b) inspecting …to determine said collision damage;
(c) collecting evidence items relating to the collision damage …and to the repair…;
(d) 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 electronic evidence overlay region positioned within said electronic overlay grid and at least one evidence item electronically linked to said at least one electronic evidence region;
wherein the electronic insurance claims settlement package is prepared by a …method using a …for preparing the insurance claims settlement package, the operations comprising:
preparing an electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan for a damaged vehicle having at least one work operation for repairing said damaged vehicle;
preparing an image …of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan having an outer perimeter dimension, wherein the image of the electronic
vehicle collision damage repair plan displays said at least one work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle;
…creating an electronic overlay grid and configuring the outer perimeter dimensions of the electronic overlay grid to be substantially coextensive with the outer perimeter dimension of the image of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan;
… creating and configuring the dimensions of at least one electronic overlay evidence region and coordinates of each of said at least one electronic overlay evidence region for positioning each of said at least one electronic overlay evidence regions within the electronic overlay gird;
positioning the electronic grid overlay over an image … 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 overlay evidence region within the electronic grid overlay over a selected work operation displayed by the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan;
selecting an electronic overlay evidence region from the at least one electronic overlay evidence region relating to a particular work operation from the at least one work operation of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan;
selecting at least one evidence item relating to the particular work operation of the at least one work operation of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan for repairing the damaged vehicle from a list of evidence items stored [in a computer storage medium];
… linking the selected at least one evidence item to the electronic evidence overlay region overlaying the particular work operation of the vehicle collision damage repair plan; and
populating the selected at least one evidence item into the electronic evidence overlay region overlaying the particular work operation;
(e) submitting the electronic insurance claims settlement package to an insurance company for settlement of an insurance claim relating to the damaged vehicle; and
(f) repairing the damaged vehicle in accordance with 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:
[computer-implemented] [computer system comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer software stored thereon, the method comprising executing the computer software to cause the one or more processors to perform operations] [file] [electronically]:
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 § 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 1-13, 26, and 27 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 1,
Li teaches,
A computer-implemented method for preparing an insurance claims settlement package for submission to an insurance company,
(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)
the method carried out by a computer system comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having executable software stored thereon, the method comprising executing the computer software to cause the one or more processors to perform operations for preparing the insurance claims package,
(Li [Claim 13] computer system comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having executable software stored thereon, the method comprising executing the computer software to cause the one or more processors to perform operations for preparing the insurance claims package
Li [0056] automatic vehicle damage assessment system is a software system that uses captured images of a damaged vehicle
Li [0057] to partially or fully automate the auto claims submission and settlement process)
the operations comprising: preparing an electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan for a damaged vehicle having at least one work operation for repairing said damaged vehicle;
(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 [0067] Knowing further whether airbags were deployed during the collision can be useful for determination of the extent of damage)
preparing an image file of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan
(Li [0005] 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 that includes indications of areas of damage to the vehicle in the damage detection image; mapping the one or more damage detection images to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the vehicle to generate a damaged 3D model that indicates area of the vehicle that are damaged
Li [0125] the server starts with a three-dimensional model of the vehicle and finds a two-dimensional projection of the three-dimensional model that best matches the cleaned image of the damaged vehicle)
having an outer perimeter ….,
(Li [0106] the active contour ...containing the vehicle within the photo... which is assumed to be the indicator of the vehicle boundary.)
wherein the image of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan displays said at least one work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle;
(Li [0005] mapping the one or more damage detection images to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the vehicle to generate a damaged 3D model that indicates area of the vehicle that are damaged; and, calculating an estimated repair cost for the vehicle based on the damaged 3D model.)
electronically creating an electronic overlay grid and configuring the outer perimeter … of the electronic overlay grid to be substantially coextensive with the outer perimeter … of the image of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan;
(Li [0048] camera matrix that maps anchor points of a 3D model to corresponding 2D projections in an image
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 [0005] 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; mapping the one or more damage detection images to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the vehicle to generate a damaged 3D model that indicates area of the vehicle that are damaged;
Li [0155] system can calculate an estimated repair cost at step 408. To arrive at the estimated cost of parts and labor needed for repairing the vehicle
Li [0062] the assessment of damage and associated repair costs relies upon image processing
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 [0106] the active contour ...containing the vehicle within the photo... which is assumed to be the indicator of the vehicle boundary.)
electronically creating and configuring the … of at least one electronic overlay evidence region and coordinates of each of said at least one electronic overlay evidence region for positioning each of said at least one electronic overlay evidence regions within the electronic overlay gird;
(Li [0055] apply computer vision and image processing to images of a damaged vehicle to determine which parts of the vehicle are damaged and estimate the cost of repair or replacement, thus automating the damage assessment and cost appraisal process
Li [0056] uses captured images of a damaged vehicle along with auxiliary information available from other sources to assess the damage and, optionally, to provide an appraisal of damage and estimate of repair costs
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.)
positioning the 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;
(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 [Claim 1] mapping the one or more damage detection images to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the vehicle to generate a damaged 3D model that indicates area of the vehicle that are damaged; and
calculating an estimated repair cost for the vehicle based on the damaged 3D model)
positioning at least one electronic overlay 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 an electronic overlay evidence region from the at least one electronic overlay evidence region relating to a particular work operation from the at least one work operation of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan;
(Li [0127] “cross-correlation” is used to choose among the top few selected templates. Cross-correlation measures different similarity properties of the two images
Li [0167] vehicle claims application receives a selection of a damaged part on the 3D model....the vehicle claims application displays an outline of the selected part.)
selecting at least one evidence item relating to the particular work operation of the at least one work operation of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan for repairing the damaged vehicle from a list of evidence items stored in a computer storage medium;
(Li [0354] Once the externally damaged parts are identified, the server can look up in a database which internal parts are also likely to be repaired or replaced based on the set of damaged external parts...server accesses one or more databases of parts and labor cost for each external and internal part that is estimated to need repair or replacement.)
electronically linking the selected at least one evidence item to the electronic evidence overlay region overlaying the particular work operation of the vehicle collision damage repair plan;
(Li [0055] apply computer vision and image processing to images of a damaged vehicle to determine which parts of the vehicle are damaged and estimate the cost of repair or replacement, thus automating the damage assessment and cost appraisal process
Li [0056] uses captured images of a damaged vehicle along with auxiliary information available from other sources to assess the damage and, optionally, to provide an appraisal of damage and estimate of repair costs)
overlaying the particular work operation.
(Li [0154] images of the damaged vehicles and the corresponding appraisals of damaged parts, as found by auto repair shops for repair purposes.)
Li does not teach dimension(s); populating the selected at least one evidence item into the electronic evidence overlay region.
Tsibulevskiy teaches,
dimension(s); populating the selected at least one evidence item into the electronic evidence overlay region.
(Tsibulevskiy [0025] The reference in the figure can include ...visually tagging or labeling or referring ...to an element (e.g., object shown, subpart of object, ...dimension of object, property of object)
Tsibulevskiy [0157] outlined .... border of an object or a region)
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 dimension labeling of Tsibulevskiy where “The reference in the figure can include ...visually tagging or labeling or referring ...to an element (e.g., object shown, subpart of object, ...dimension of object, property of object),.” (Tsibulevskiy [0025]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. dimension labeling) to a known concept (i.e. insurance claims settlement preparation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “In order to locate the reference in the figure” Tsibulevskiy [0027])
Regarding Claim 2,
Li and Tsibulevskiy teach 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 and Tsibulevskiy teach 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 5,
Li and Tsibulevskiy teach 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 and Tsibulevskiy teach 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 7,
Li and Tsibulevskiy teach 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])
Regarding Claim 10,
Li and Tsibulevskiy teach 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 and Tsibulevskiy teach 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 and Tsibulevskiy teach 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 and Tsibulevskiy teach 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.)
Claim 26 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 27 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
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), in view of Tsibulevskiy (“TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220319219 A1).
Regarding Claim 28,
Li teaches,
(a) 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.)
(b) inspecting the vehicle to determine said collision damage;
(Li [0002] Inspection of the vehicle by a mechanic at the auto repair shop is required)
(c) 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)
(d) 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)
wherein the electronic insurance claims settlement package is prepared by a computer-implemented method using a computer system comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer software stored thereon, the method comprising executing the computer software to cause the one or more processors to perform operations for preparing the insurance claims settlement package,
(Li [Claim 13] computer system comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having executable software stored thereon, the method comprising executing the computer software to cause the one or more processors to perform operations for preparing the insurance claims package
Li [0056] automatic vehicle damage assessment system is a software system that uses captured images of a damaged vehicle
Li [0057] to partially or fully automate the auto claims submission and settlement process)
the operations comprising: preparing an electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan for a damaged vehicle having at least one work operation for repairing said damaged vehicle;
(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 [0067] Knowing further whether airbags were deployed during the collision can be useful for determination of the extent of damage)
preparing an image file of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan
(Li [0005] 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 that includes indications of areas of damage to the vehicle in the damage detection image; mapping the one or more damage detection images to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the vehicle to generate a damaged 3D model that indicates area of the vehicle that are damaged
Li [0125] the server starts with a three-dimensional model of the vehicle and finds a two-dimensional projection of the three-dimensional model that best matches the cleaned image of the damaged vehicle)
having an outer perimeter …,
(Li [0106] the active contour ...containing the vehicle within the photo... which is assumed to be the indicator of the vehicle boundary.)
wherein the image of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan displays said at least one work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle;
(Li [0005] mapping the one or more damage detection images to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the vehicle to generate a damaged 3D model that indicates area of the vehicle that are damaged; and, calculating an estimated repair cost for the vehicle based on the damaged 3D model.)
electronically creating an electronic overlay grid and configuring the outer perimeter …of the electronic overlay grid to be substantially coextensive with the outer perimeter … of the image of the electronic vehicle collision damage 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 [0048] camera matrix that maps anchor points of a 3D model to corresponding 2D projections in an image
Li [0106] the active contour ...containing the vehicle within the photo... which is assumed to be the indicator of the vehicle boundary.)
electronically creating and configuring the dimensions of at least one electronic overlay evidence region and coordinates of each of said at least one electronic overlay evidence region for positioning each of said at least one electronic overlay evidence regions within the electronic overlay gird;
(Li [0055] apply computer vision and image processing to images of a damaged vehicle to determine which parts of the vehicle are damaged and estimate the cost of repair or replacement, thus automating the damage assessment and cost appraisal process
Li [0056] uses captured images of a damaged vehicle along with auxiliary information available from other sources to assess the damage and, optionally, to provide an appraisal of damage and estimate of repair costs
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.)
positioning the 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;
(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 [Claim 1] mapping the one or more damage detection images to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the vehicle to generate a damaged 3D model that indicates area of the vehicle that are damaged; and
calculating an estimated repair cost for the vehicle based on the damaged 3D model)
positioning at least one electronic overlay 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 an electronic overlay evidence region from the at least one electronic overlay evidence region relating to a particular work operation from the at least one work operation of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan;
(Li [0127] “cross-correlation” is used to choose among the top few selected templates. Cross-correlation measures different similarity properties of the two images
Li [0167] vehicle claims application receives a selection of a damaged part on the 3D model....the vehicle claims application displays an outline of the selected part)
selecting at least one evidence item relating to the particular work operation of the at least one work operation of the electronic vehicle collision damage repair plan for repairing the damaged vehicle from a list of evidence items stored in a computer storage medium;
(Li [0354] Once the externally damaged parts are identified, the server can look up in a database which internal parts are also likely to be repaired or replaced based on the set of damaged external parts...server accesses one or more databases of parts and labor cost for each external and internal part that is estimated to need repair or replacement.)
electronically linking the selected at least one evidence item to the electronic evidence overlay region overlaying the particular work operation of the vehicle collision damage repair plan;
(Li [0055] apply computer vision and image processing to images of a damaged vehicle to determine which parts of the vehicle are damaged and estimate the cost of repair or replacement, thus automating the damage assessment and cost appraisal process
Li [0056] uses captured images of a damaged vehicle along with auxiliary information available from other sources to assess the damage and, optionally, to provide an appraisal of damage and estimate of repair costs)
overlaying the particular work operation;
(Li [0154] images of the damaged vehicles and the corresponding appraisals of damaged parts, as found by auto repair shops for repair purposes.)
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 electronic evidence overlay region positioned within said electronic overlay grid and at least one evidence item electronically linked to said at least one evidence region; (e) submitting the electronic insurance claims settlement package to an insurance company for settlement of an insurance claim relating to the damaged vehicle; and (f) repairing the damaged vehicle in accordance with…; and
dimensions ; populating the selected at least one evidence item into the electronic evidence overlay region
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 electronic overlay grid and at least one evidence item electronically linked to said at least one electronic 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, reducing the insurance adjustment processing time)
and repairing the damaged vehicle in accordance
(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] present invention is useful for construction sites where, for example, verifications or sign-offs are required by insurance companies
Jimenez [0008] allows for before and after digital comparisons useful in for example insurance claims )
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 repair verification of Jimenez where “analysis of body panel gaps or shut lines can be performed.” (Jimenez [0017]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. repair verification) to a known concept (i.e. insurance claims settlement preparation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “evidence of structural damage or shoddy repair work can be documented” Jimenez [0017])
Jimenez does not teach and dimensions ; populating the selected at least one evidence item into the electronic evidence overlay region;
Tsibulevskiy teaches,
dimension(s); populating the selected at least one evidence item into the electronic evidence overlay region.
(Tsibulevskiy [0025] The reference in the figure can include ...visually tagging or labeling or referring ...to an element (e.g., object shown, subpart of object, ...dimension of object, property of object)
Tsibulevskiy [0157] outlined .... border of an object or a region)
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 dimension labeling of Tsibulevskiy where “The reference in the figure can include ...visually tagging or labeling or referring ...to an element (e.g., object shown, subpart of object, ...dimension of object, property of object),.” (Tsibulevskiy [0025]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. dimension labeling) to a known concept (i.e. insurance claims settlement preparation) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “In order to locate the reference in the figure” Tsibulevskiy [0027])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on February 17, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the previous objection of claims have been fully addressed. However, upon further consideration of newly amended claims, a new grounds for objection is made.
A rejection remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“The present claims, however, are directed to preparing an insurance claims settlement package that enables the efficient review and prompt settlement of an insurance claim, reduces the required interactions between the vehicle owner, the collision repair facility, and the insurance company, and reduces the chances for mistake and missing critical evidence relating to the damaged vehicle and proposed repair…. prevents the need to transmit separate files to an insurance agent"
Examiner responds:
The alleged inventive concept of “preparing an insurance claims settlement package that enables the efficient review and prompt settlement of an insurance claim, reduc[ing] the required interactions between the vehicle owner, the collision repair facility, and the insurance company, and reduc[ing] the chances for mistake and missing critical evidence relating to the damaged vehicle and proposed repair” continue to express an abstract idea.
The notion of “prevents the need to transmit separate files to an insurance agent” amounts to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data that expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
Even if it were considered an additional element, it would fall under Mere Data Gathering [Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)]
The “data package”, “grid overlay”, evidence regions”, and “repair plan” are not considered a technological components but rather an abstract ideas. One abstract idea cannot integrate another abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's amendments required the application of no new/additional prior art.
Applicant’s amendments alter the scope of the original claimed invention and the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 no longer applies. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of newly amended claims, a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103.
The Applicant states:
“Applicant's claim 1 recites that the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan displays at least one work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle, an electronic grid overlay is electronically created and positioned over the image of the repair plan, and at least one electronic evidence region positioned within the electronic grid overlay over a selected work operation displayed on the underlying damage repair plan. "
Examiner responds:
The combination of Li and Tsibulevskiy teach “the image of the vehicle collision damage repair plan displays at least one work operation for repairing the damaged vehicle, an electronic grid overlay is electronically created and positioned over the image of the repair plan, and at least one electronic evidence region positioned within the electronic grid overlay over a selected work operation displayed on the underlying damage repair plan”:
Li [0048] camera matrix that maps anchor points of a 3D model to corresponding 2D projections in an image
Li [0005] 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; mapping the one or more damage detection images to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the vehicle to generate a damaged 3D model that indicates area of the vehicle that are damaged;
Li [0155] system can calculate an estimated repair cost at step 408. To arrive at the estimated cost of parts and labor needed for repairing the vehicle
Li [0062] the assessment of damage and associated repair costs relies upon image processing
Tsibulevskiy [0025] The reference in the figure can include ...visually tagging or labeling or referring ...to an element (e.g., object shown, subpart of object, ...dimension of object, property of object)
Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In reMerck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kasavala (“METHOD AND DEVICE FOR RECOGNISING AND ANALYSING SURFACE DEFECTS IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECTS HAVING A REFLECTIVE SURFACE, IN PARTICULAR MOTOR VEHICLE BODIES”, U.S. Publication Number: 20210325313 A1) proposes a method and device recognize and analyze surface defects in three-dimensional objects having a reflective surface, in particular motor vehicle bodies. In which method the surface defects are identified by the evaluation of an image, recorded by a camera in the form of a raster image of pixels, of an illumination pattern projected by a first illumination device onto a part of the reflective surface using a two-dimensional raster coordinate system. The surface defects are identified exclusively using two-dimensional image information with the aid of image processing algorithms.
Ekstein (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY DETECTING DAMAGES IN VEHICLES”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220148287 A1) provides an automatic system for detecting a damage to a vehicle, comprising: (a) at least one camera for capturing “handover” and “return” images irrespective of the vehicle's movement or orientation relative to the camera; (b) a memory for storing images of basic-parts (c) a first determination unit for, based on the basic-parts images, determine the location of one or more basic-parts within the “handover” and “return” images; (d) a second determination unit configured to, based on the determined locations of the basic parts within the images, determine the locations of “other parts” within the “handover” and “return” images, thereby to form “handover” and “return” part-images, respectively; (e) a transformation unit configured to separately transform each pair of “handover” and “return” part-images, respectively, to a same plane; (f) a comparison unit configured to separately compare pixel-by-pixel each transformed pairs of “handover” and “return” part-images, to detect a difference above a predefined threshold.
Chen (“VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP PRE-INSPECTION AND POST-INSPECTION VERIFICATION SYSTEM”, U.S. Publication Number: 20170267192 A1) provides verifying the thoroughness of automotive repairs. The system is adapted to retrieve electronic data and information from an onboard automobile computer or electronic system after a purported repair has been completed. The presence of fault codes or other problem data is an indication that such repairs have not been completed, while the absence of such fault codes or problem data is an indication that the repairs have been completed thoroughly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights