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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 88, 98, and 107 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim term “the mobile device identifying data object” should be “a mobile device identifying data object” for proper antecedent basis introduction. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 96 is objected to because of the following informalities: the numbering of the claim repeats the number 95 rather than introducing claim 96. 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 88-107 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 98 and 107 since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter. Furthermore, independent claims 1, 13, and 19 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter (a process for claim 1; an apparatus for claim 98; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for claim 107); thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis:
The independent claims are directed to receiving at least one image of a mobile device captured by one or more image sensors of the mobile device, the at least one image captured via a reflective surface; processing the at least one image to determine an angle of the mobile device when the at least one image was captured based on the reflective surface; determining, based on the angle, that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object; and in response to determining that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object, causing a message instructing a user to capture an image of the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object.
Each of the above steps can be performed mentally. In particular, a person stands in front of a mirror and takes a photo/image with their smartphone mobile device of the device itself in the image reflected in the mirror; then, based on the image taken the angle that the phone is held by the user is found by the user by viewing how the phone fits into the image taken of the mirror; based on that analysis of the angle, the person determines that the phone they have is not actually their phone but rather a different phone based on how the phone looks in the image taken with the camera; a friend observing the user analyzing the phone then prompts them to find their correct phone and redo the process of taking a mirror image of the phone with the phone camera to verify that a different phone is actually theirs; therefore, this process can all be done mentally.
As such, the description in independent claims 88, 98, and 107 is an abstract idea – namely, a mental process. Accordingly, the analysis under prong one of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Additional elements:
The additional element recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 19 are at least one model and the display on the mobile device.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Each of the other additional elements (at least one model and the display on the mobile device) amounts to merely using different devices as tools to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer or using known generic devices does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B:
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Each of the other additional elements (at least one model and the display on the mobile device) are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 88, 98, and 107 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 89-97 and 99-106 all involve different steps of evaluating the image of the device that are simple enough to be done by human vision, taking images of both sides of the phone, determining the integrity status of the phone, evaluating damage to the phone to determine if the phone qualifies for a damage insurance plan, identifying details of the phone such as device type, international mobile equipment identity (IMEI), make, and model identifier, and requesting to join an insurance plan for the phone; all these steps are easily executed by a capable human; therefore, this process can all be done mentally.
Therefore, dependent claims 89-97 and 99-106 recite the same abstract idea of a mental process which can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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.
Claims 88-91, 93-95, 98-101, 103-105, and 107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No.: 11,210,777 (Fitzgerald et al.) (hereinafter Fitzgerald), in view of U.S. Patent Application No.: 2019/0266720 (Dwivedi et al.) (hereinafter Dwivedi).
Regarding claim 88, Fitzgerald teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: (Fitzgerald, col. 16, lines 7-17: "in an additional embodiment of the present invention, a user that has a mobile device with an alleged fault condition (such as a cracked screen/display) may be requested to install an application (such as the Fault State Test Application referred to above) on the allegedly faulty mobile device; the FSTA provides a trusted method to assess the veracity of a claimed fault condition on the mobile device (such as a cracked or damaged screen/display); the FSTA interacts with the mobile device's user to obtain sensor readings and user inputs that are utilized to assess whether the mobile device is in fact faulty; the determination of a fault/non-fault condition can then be displayed and/or sent to a third party (such as an insurance company that is being asked to provide policy coverage for the mobile device) in a secure manner (so that the test performed on the mobile device provides a trusted result)");
receiving at least one image of a mobile device captured by one or more image sensors of the mobile device, the at least one image captured via a reflective surface (Fitzgerald, col. 23, lines 41-46: "referring to the process 1600 illustrated in FIG. 16, an FSTA is installed 1610 on the mobile device that is desired to be tested 800 (also shown in FIGS. 14 and 15 with user prompts and guidance for capturing an image of the mobile device in a reflective surface such as a mirror)"; Fitzgerald, col. 24, lines 1-15: "the image capture process begins 1705, where the FSTA analyzes ambient lighting 1707 from a light sensor within the mobile device 800; then 1709, screen brightness and camera sensitivity of the mobile device 800 are adjusted to allow the mobile device's front-facing camera (e.g., FIG. 14, 874) to optimally follow a tracking image (FIG. 14, 1430) displayed on the mobile device's display (e.g., FIG. 14, 1400), the user is directed to move the device 800 into position 1715 with the display of the mobile device facing a reflective device such as a mirror; the tracking algorithm of the FSTA identifies the mobile device and provides guidance to the user from the display of the mobile device 800 to move/rotate the mobile device 1720 until it is determined that the mobile device is in optimal position to capture an image ... an image is then captured 1740 by the front-facing camera (e.g. FIG. 14, 874) of the mobile device 800").
Fitzgerald fails to teach
with at least one model, processing the at least one image to determine an angle of the mobile device when the at least one image was captured based on the reflective surface; determining, based on the angle, that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object; and in response to determining that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object, causing display on the mobile device of a message instructing a user to capture an image of the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object.
Dwivedi teaches
with at least one model, processing the at least one image to determine an angle of the mobile device when the at least one image was captured based on the reflective surface (Dwivedi, para. [0066], lines 1-9: "the distance at which images are captured by the device may also be managed, in some implementations; for example, the focal length of the camera may be set by the application and the position of the device may be adjusted until the identifier graphic on the device screen is focused in the image obtained by the camera; in some implementations, the size of the identifier (e.g., QR code) in the image may determine the appropriate distance a user should position the device from the mirror”); determining, based on the angle, (Dwivedi, para. [0066], lines 9-19: “in some implementations, a corner angle detection may facilitate determination of whether the device is positioned in the predetermined position for image capture with respect to the angle at which the device is positioned proximate the mirror; for example, the predetermined position for image capture may include positioning the device parallel to the surface of the mirror and so the corner angle detection may identify the corner angles in the image and determine the angles at each corner to determine if the device was parallel to the surface of the mirror at the time of image capture") that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object (Dwivedi, para. [0061], lines 12-24: "the generation of the graphic may include retrieving a graphic from a memory (e.g., of the device and/or coupled to the device) and/or generating an identifier (e.g., based on device information such as IMEI information, user information, temporal information such as date/time, and/or validation of such information in real-time within defined thresholds to eliminate reuse of previously taken good device images or images of another device, etc.); some graphics may facilitate detection of screen condition; for example, the graphic generated by the application may include a solid green, black, and/or white graphic that covers at least a portion of the display screen (e.g., the active portion of the display screen or portions thereof)"; Dwivedi, para. [0062], lines 19-29: "for example, if the identifier is blurry in the reflection of the identifier in the mirror, the user may be notified and prompted to adjust the position of the device; in some implementations, once the device is in the appropriate position, the return application may or may not capture an image of the reflection of the device screen in the mirror that includes the identifier code; in some implementations, the return application and/or server may verify the QR code captured is associated with the device (e.g., the QR code may be decoded, compared with known device information, etc.)"; Dwivedi, para. [0065]: "in some implementations, the first image may be captured and/or processed such that second images may be tagged (e.g., attached and/or encoded) with the first image, portions thereof, and/or a decoded identifier; the second image(s) may be captured prior to and/or subsequent to the first image, in some implementations; by tagging the second image(s) with the first image or portion thereof (e.g., information obtained by decoding the identifier), fraud may be reduced; for example, a user may be inhibited from uploading an image of a different device screen (e.g., a device screen not of the device) since an uploaded image may not include the encoded portion; In some implementations, the return application and/or server may be able to identify second images that are not tagged to identify fraudulent images of device screen(s)”; Dwivedi, para. [0066], lines 1-9: "in some implementations, the size of the identifier (e.g., QR code) in the image may determine the appropriate distance a user should position the device from the mirror”; Dwivedi determines the angle in order to ensure proper positioning for accurate image capture. When an image is accurately captured based on the angle relative to the mirror, Dwivedi further teaches determining from the image whether the image includes the different mobile device via image analysis of the identifier (QR code) on the screen of the device image. Therefore, the determination of whether the correct mobile device is in the image is based on the angle determination of the device because, if the angle is not satisfactory the QR code cannot be read properly and the process would fail in verifying mobile integrity status); and
in response to determining that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object, causing display on the mobile device of a message instructing a user to capture an image of the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object (Dwivedi, para. [0093], lines 9-21: "in some implementations, the determination by the return application in pre-processing that the captured image is of poor quality may cause the return application to reject the image and/or request recapture of the image; when recapturing the image, the return application may regenerate and/or present the graphics on the screen of the first device; the return application may modify the graphic, device settings, and/or prompt the user for adjustment in the recapture (e.g., restrict flash, adjust orientation, etc.). In some implementations, poor quality images may be processed to identify a condition of a component of the device"; Dwivedi, para. [0051], lines 15-26: "for example, the return application may prompt (e.g., via visual and/or auditory notifications) the user with instructions to adjust the position of the device, such as to move the device closer, farther away, tap the image to refocus the image, adjust the angle at which the device is held, etc."; Dwivedi, para. [0059], lines 9-11: "this may guide a user to align and position device at the correct angle and distance from the mirror"; Dwivedi rejects a user’s submitted image of the mobile device based on evaluating the identifier (QR code) on the device screen being faulty, which is in turn decided based on the angle of the mobile device image in relation to the mirror (ex: mobile device is not parallel to the mirror so accurately capturing the identifier is not possible). Dwivedi then displays a request for recapture on the user’s mobile device. Because of this, the mobile device integrity status is already not verified since Dwivedi explicitly rejects the image and prompts the user to recapture a new mobile device image in the mirror).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the method, as taught by Fitzgerald, to include the steps of processing, with at least one model, the at least one image to determine an angle of the mobile device when the at least one image was captured based on the reflective surface, determining, based on the angle, that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object, and in response to determining that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object, causing display on the mobile device of a message instructing a user to capture an image of the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object, as taught by Dwivedi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to 1) provide more robust fraud detection and security when user submit images of mobile devices (Dwivedi, para. [0065]: “a user may be inhibited from uploading an image of a different device screen (e.g., a device screen not of the device) since an uploaded image may not include the encoded portion; in some implementations, the return application and/or server may be able to identify second images that are not tagged to identify fraudulent images of device screen(s).”) and 2) to give real-time visual feedback to a user of the mobile device to ensure that a properly framed and accurate image is captured so the image of the device along with the displayed ID code are adequately represented in the image for subsequent analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fitzgerald, with Dwivedi, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 88.
Regarding claim 89, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 88.
Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, fails to teach
wherein determining the angle of the mobile device when the at least one image was captured based on the reflective surface comprises measuring edges of the mobile device in the at least one image.
Dwivedi further teaches
wherein determining the angle of the mobile device when the at least one image was captured based on the reflective surface comprises measuring edges of the mobile device in the at least one image (Dwivedi, para. [0069]; para. [0066]: “The device screen 510 may be detected using corner detection 535, as illustrated in the image 530 in FIG. 5B. FIG. 6B illustrates an implementation of an example image 600 that includes a device screen 610. As illustrated the image is includes the device screen 510 and an area proximate the device 620. The components of the device can be identified in the image using edge detection of the edges 630 of the device in the image, in some implementations.”; “In some implementations, a corner angle detection may facilitate determination of whether the device is positioned in the predetermined position for image capture with respect to the angle at which the device is positioned proximate the mirror. For example, the predetermined position for image capture may include positioning the device parallel to the surface of the mirror and so the corner angle detection may identify the corner angles in the image and determine the angles at each corner to determine if the device was parallel to the surface of the mirror at the time of image capture.”; the corner angles are found to then find the angle of the mobile device with respect to the mirror (reflective surface); the corner angles of the device are found in the image based on detected edges of the device itself; only if you know the actual boundaries/edges of the device in the image is it possible to then determine the corner angles).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the step of determining the angle of the mobile device when the at least one image was captured based on the reflective surface, as taught by Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, to include measuring edges of the mobile device in the at least one image, as further taught by Dwivedi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to give real-time visual feedback to a user of the mobile device to ensure that a properly framed and accurate image is captured so the image of the device along with the displayed ID code are adequately represented in the image for subsequent analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fitzgerald in view of Dwivedi, with Dwivedi further, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 89.
Regarding claim 90, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 88, wherein the at least one image comprises an image of a front of the mobile device (Fitzgerald, col. 33, lines 4-13: "in an alternative embodiment, the neural network (FIG. 8, 47) may be trained in multiple steps and various portions of the neural network may be trained with separate training data sets to achieve particular defect classification; for example, a convolutional neural network of the present invention may be pre-trained to recognize a large number of generic visual object classes, and then a final layer of the network may be retrained to identify specific visual items, such as screen defects (e.g., cracked or damages displays of a mobile device)"; recognizing the display/screen is the same as recognizing the front of the mobile device) and
an image of a rear of the mobile device (Fitzgerald, col. 24, lines 38-46: "those of skill in the relevant arts also appreciate that the rear-facing camera 872 of the mobile device 800 of the present invention may be used when facing a reflective surface to record an image of another surface of the mobile device 800, including, for instance, a back side of the mobile device casing; in this manner, defects in the casing may be analyzed by the optical neural network analysis of the present invention to detect casing defects, wear patterns, chipping, cracking, and the like").
Regarding claim 91, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 88, further comprising, further in response to determining that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object, determining a mobile device integrity status of the mobile device is not verified (Dwivedi, para. [0061], lines 12-24; Dwivedi, para. [0093], lines 9-21; see rejection of claim 88 above; Dwivedi rejects a user’s submitted image of the mobile device based on evaluating the identifier (QR code) on the device screen being faulty, which is in turn decided based on the angle of the mobile device image in relation to the mirror (ex: mobile device is not parallel to the mirror so accurately capturing the identifier is not possible). Dwivedi then display’s a request for recapture on the user’s mobile device. Because of this, the mobile device integrity status is already not verified since Dwivedi explicitly rejects the image and prompts the user to recapture a new mobile device image in the mirror).
Regarding claim 93, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 88, wherein the mobile device identifying data object comprises an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) (Fitzgerald, col. 17, lines 21-30: "likewise, embodiments of the present invention provide for verification that the phone being checked is the one being insured (e.g. through transmission of mobile device ID information such as IMEI information or other data described herein as part of the test); further, embodiments of the present invention may be used in identifying that the mobile device is the correct device under warranty before it is returned for repair of screen to reduce spurious claims"; Fitzgerald, col. 29, lines 60-67: "in one embodiment, the downscaled and resampled device image (for example, an image file as resulting from step 1820 of FIG. 18), along with any optional device data that may be used in processing an image associated with the device (such as a unique identifier associated with the device, including but not limited to an IMEI associated with the device) are presented 2405 to an input layer 2410 of the neural network”).
Regarding claim 94, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 88, wherein the mobile device identifying data object comprises a device type (Fitzgerald, col. 15, lines 48-67: “The device data 45 and corresponding device images 46 may also be stored in the database 880. Any appropriate data may be included in the information relayed to the third party, such as a device type, a manufacturer, a model number, a serial number, a manufacturing date, a hardware configuration list, a memory capacity, a software manifest, a list of operable features, a list of inoperable features, an electronic serial number, an ESN, an IMEI number, an international mobile equipment identifier number, an IMSI number, an international mobile subscriber identity number, a UIMID number, and a user identity module identifier, test results, and fault conditions.”).
Regarding claim 95, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 88, wherein the mobile device identifying data object comprises a make and a model identifier (Fitzgerald, col. 15, lines 48-67: “The device data 45 and corresponding device images 46 may also be stored in the database 880. Any appropriate data may be included in the information relayed to the third party, such as a device type, a manufacturer, a model number, a serial number, a manufacturing date, a hardware configuration list, a memory capacity, a software manifest, a list of operable features, a list of inoperable features, an electronic serial number, an ESN, an IMEI number, an international mobile equipment identifier number, an IMSI number, an international mobile subscriber identity number, a UIMID number, and a user identity module identifier, test results, and fault conditions.”).
Regarding claim 98, Fitzgerald teaches an apparatus comprising one or more processors and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to at least: (Fitzgerald col. 10, lines 46-50: “software performing methods of the present invention may be provided with the device or downloaded onto the mobile device by an authorized user, and/or may be further resident in memory 16 of the host server 860 and executable by the server processor 14”).
With regards to the remaining limitations of independent claim 98 and dependent claims 99-101, and 103-105, they recite the functions of the process of claims 88-91 and 93-95, taught by Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, respectively, as apparatuses. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 89-91, and 93-95 are equally applicable to the remaining limitations of independent claim 98 and dependent claims 99-101 and 103-105, respectively.
Regarding claim 107, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein, the computer-executable program code instructions comprising program code instructions to: (Fitzgerald, col. 14, lines 47-50: “the host server 860 may include one or more system processors 14 that retrieve and execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory 16 to control (at least partially) the operation of the host server 860”; “Fitzgerald col. 10, lines 46-50: “software performing methods of the present invention may be provided with the device or downloaded onto the mobile device by an authorized user, and/or may be further resident in memory 16 of the host server 860 and executable by the server processor 14”).
With regards to the remaining limitations of independent claim 107, it recites the functions of the process of independent claim 88, as a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 88 is equally applicable to the remaining limitations of claim 107.
Claims 92, 96-97, 102, and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2021/0182974 (Wooldridge) (hereinafter Wooldridge).
Regarding claim 92, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 88, wherein the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object (Dwivedi, para. [0061], lines 12-24; para. [0065]-[0066]; see rejection of claim 88 above).
Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, fails to teach
determining a threshold confidence level for auto-enrolling the mobile device in a damage protection plan has not been satisfied.
Wooldridge teaches
determining a threshold confidence level for auto-enrolling the mobile device in a damage protection plan has not been satisfied (Wooldridge, para. [0008] para. [0010]; para. [0022]-[0023]; FIG. 1: “As shown in FIG. 1, a method of a first preferred embodiment for offering a protection policy for a mobile device preferably includes: providing an application for testing the mobile device S105; testing a mobile device S110; calculating device risk with results from the test S120; and offering a protection policy S130.”; “Step S110, which includes testing a mobile device, functions to collect data that can be used to check the functionality of the mobile device. The testing of the mobile device preferably includes testing communication components S112, testing user interface components S114, testing device operational components S116, and/or testing any other suitable components … The testing may additionally include conducting extended background testing S118. The background testing preferably functions to test components in a variety of normal use situations, and may be used to classify the behavior of the user of the mobile device”; “Step S120, which includes calculating risk of insuring the mobile device with results from the test, functions to determine an appropriate insurance policy or program enrollment rate. The operational state of the various components is preferably collectively considered when calculating risk. If all components pass, the risk is preferably low. If a component of the mobile device experienced a failure or had questionable/non-standard performance, then the risk is preferably higher. If most or all components failed, then the risk is preferably very high, possibly to the extent that the mobile device is no longer insurable … If the all the information passes, then the mobile device is preferably eligible for an insurance policy … Step S130, which includes offering a protection policy, functions to complete the enrollment of the mobile device. Preferably, Step 130 includes offering an insurance policy for the mobile device. A protection policy corresponding to the device risk calculated in Step S120 is preferably presented and described within the app, and the user may complete the enrollment in and/or purchase of the protection policy from within the application.”;
PNG
media_image1.png
860
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
Examiner interprets the claim term “auto-enroll” under broadest reasonable interpretation to include automatically sending insurance protection plan information to user after the mobile device is approved.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the step of determining that the at least one image includes a different mobile device than the mobile device associated with the mobile device identifying data object, as taught by Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, to include determining a threshold confidence level for auto-enrolling the mobile device in a damage protection plan has not been satisfied, as taught by Wooldridge.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that “with so much value invested in mobile devices and with the risk of losing or breaking the mobile devices being sufficiently high, there are many benefits to having a protection policy, such as an insurance policy, warranty plan, or some other suitable program, for the mobile device” (Wooldridge, para. [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fitzgerald and Dwivedi, with Wooldridge, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 92.
Regarding claim 96, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 88, wherein at least one image of a mobile device is captured (Fitzgerald, col. 23, lines 41-46; see rejection of claim 88 above).
Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, fails to teach
wherein the at least one image from a mobile device is captured in response to a request to enroll the mobile device in a device detection plan.
Wooldridge teaches
wherein the at least one image from a mobile device is captured in response to a request to enroll the mobile device in a device detection plan (Wooldridge, para. [0008] para. [0010]; para. [0022]-[0023]; para. [0016]: “As shown in FIG. 1, a method of a first preferred embodiment for offering a protection policy for a mobile device preferably includes: providing an application for testing the mobile device S105; testing a mobile device S110; calculating device risk with results from the test S120; and offering a protection policy S130.”; “Step S110, which includes testing a mobile device, functions to collect data that can be used to check the functionality of the mobile device. The testing of the mobile device preferably includes testing communication components S112, testing user interface components S114, testing device operational components S116, and/or testing any other suitable components …”; “Step S120, which includes calculating risk of insuring the mobile device with results from the test, functions to determine an appropriate insurance policy or program enrollment rate. The operational state of the various components is preferably collectively considered when calculating risk. If all components pass, the risk is preferably low. If a component of the mobile device experienced a failure or had questionable/non-standard performance, then the risk is preferably higher. If most or all components failed, then the risk is preferably very high, possibly to the extent that the mobile device is no longer insurable … If the all the information passes, then the mobile device is preferably eligible for an insurance policy … Step S130, which includes offering a protection policy, functions to complete the enrollment of the mobile device.”; “A camera is preferably tested by taking a photo. The photo may be of any suitable object, but the photo may be of a standard object such as an image printed for the test or any suitable object.”; Step S130 in FIG. 1 shows the process of a user choosing to enroll in an insurance plan/detection plan for their mobile device and the process determines whether an insurance plan is offered or not and part of the testing of the mobile device includes testing the camera of the phone by taking an image an object).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the step of capturing the at least one image of a mobile device, as taught by Fitzgerald, in view Dwivedi, so that the at least one image from a mobile device is captured in response to a request to enroll the mobile device in a device detection plan, as taught by Wooldridge.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that “with so much value invested in mobile devices and with the risk of losing or breaking the mobile devices being sufficiently high, there are many benefits to having a protection policy, such as an insurance policy, warranty plan, or some other suitable program, for the mobile device” (Wooldridge, para. [0003]).
Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, and in view of Wooldridge, teaches wherein the at least one image of a mobile device is captured in response to a request to enroll the mobile device in a device detection plan (Fitzgerald, col. 23, lines 41-46; see rejection of claim 88 above; (Wooldridge, para. [0008]-[0009]; see rejection above; Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches that at least one image of a mobile device is captured by taking an image of the device in a mirror (reflective surface) and the image is evaluated for whether the mobile device is verified or not, has damages etc.; Wooldridge teaches a user requesting to enroll in an insurance protection plan for their mobile phone device and among the process of verifying aspects of the phone such as the level of damage to the phone a step of taking an image with the device’s camera of an object to verify the camera works helps the system decide if insurance will be offered to the device or not; therefore, when Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, is modified by Wooldridge, the image taken by the camera is not of a different object, but is an image taken of the device itself in a mirror/reflective surface to be included in the testing for damages, before a decision is made to offer an insurance plan to the user of the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fitzgerald and Dwivedi, with Wooldridge, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 96.
Regarding claim 97, Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 88.
Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, fails to teach
wherein the mobile device identifying data object is associated with a request to enroll the mobile device in a device detection plan.
Wooldridge teaches
wherein the mobile device identifying data object is associated with a request to enroll the mobile device in a device detection plan (Wooldridge, para. [0008] para. [0010]; para. [0022]-[0023]; para. [0016]: “As shown in FIG. 1, a method of a first preferred embodiment for offering a protection policy for a mobile device preferably includes: providing an application for testing the mobile device S105; testing a mobile device S110; calculating device risk with results from the test S120; and offering a protection policy S130.”; “Step S110, which includes testing a mobile device, functions to collect data that can be used to check the functionality of the mobile device. The testing of the mobile device preferably includes testing communication components S112, testing user interface components S114, testing device operational components S116, and/or testing any other suitable components …”; “Step S120, which includes calculating risk of insuring the mobile device with results from the test, functions to determine an appropriate insurance policy or program enrollment rate. The operational state of the various components is preferably collectively considered when calculating risk. If all components pass, the risk is preferably low. If a component of the mobile device experienced a failure or had questionable/non-standard performance, then the risk is preferably higher. If most or all components failed, then the risk is preferably very high, possibly to the extent that the mobile device is no longer insurable … If the all the information passes, then the mobile device is preferably eligible for an insurance policy … Step S130, which includes offering a protection policy, functions to complete the enrollment of the mobile device.”; a user makes a request to enroll their mobile device in an insurance protection/detection plan).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the mobile device identifying data object, as taught by Fitzgerald, in view of Dwivedi, to be associated with a request to enroll the mobile device in a device detection plan, as taught by Wooldridge.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that “with so much value invested in mobile devices and with the risk of losing or breaking the mobile devices being sufficiently high, there are many benefits to having a protection policy, such as an insurance policy, warranty plan, or some other suitable program, for the mobile device” (Wooldridge, para. [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fitzgerald and Dwivedi, with Wooldridge, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 97.
With regards to claims 102 and 106, they recite the functions of the process of claims 92 and 96, respectively, as apparatuses. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 92 and 96 are equally applicable to claims 102 and 106, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ADAM SHARIFF whose telephone number is 571-272-9741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on 571-272-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL ADAM SHARIFF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights