Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to application filed on 09/23/2024.
Priority Date: CON of 3-PATs (US12/100,051 [#17/470,658], US 11/120,508 [#16/354,948], and US 10/235,716 [#14/656,935]>2015-03-13
Claim Status:
Pending claims : 1-20
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 11 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for Generating Historical Hail Evaluation Data.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 11 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim recites the limitations of:
receiving, by one or more hail history … coupled to a risk mitigation … system, from a remote requester …, a hail history score request, the hail history score request including a hail location and a hail period date range, the remote requester … being configured to display a hail history score request interface, the hail history score request interface including a hail location input for receiving geographic location data to be provided in the hail history score request, a hail location selector for selecting a geographic location data type for the hail location, the selectable geographic location data types comprising address data and latitude/longitude data, and a hail period date range input;
obtaining, by the one or more hail history …, latitude/longitude data for the geographic location data;
automatically accessing, by the one or more hail history …, hail history data in one or more hail history databases based on the latitude/longitude data, and a date range corresponding to the hail period date range, the one or more hail history databases further comprising historical hail evaluation data including fraud flags generated for geographic locations;
automatically evaluating, by the one or more hail history …, the accessed information to calculate a hail history score value and determine whether to generate a fraud flag corresponding to one of:
an underwriting decision, and
(ii) a claims processing decision, wherein the hail history score value is based on a number of hail events experienced at the geographic location during the hail period date range; and
transmitting, by the one or more hail history …, to the risk mitigation … system, historical hail evaluation data including the calculated hail history score value, and the fraud flag, responsive to a positive determination to generate the fraud flag.
The claimed method/system simply describes series of steps for Generating Historical Hail Evaluation Data.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claim 1.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed towards:
Using, periodically receive radar-based hail data from a third-party weather reporting service and store the radar-based hail data in the one or more hail history databases; the hail history score is further based upon a size of hail associated with each of the hail events experienced at the geographic location during the hail period date range; assigning a number of risk points, and evaluating the data accessed from the one or more hail history databases to determine a total number of risk points associated with a time period; wherein the historical hail evaluation data transmitted to the risk mitigation system for each of the plurality of locations includes the fraud flag generated for each of the plurality of locations; and historical hail size at the geographic location within the hail period date range; and number of hail events recorded at the geographic location within the hail period date range.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Double Patenting
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title".
The following non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in the public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent. In re Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005, 140 USPQ 474 (CCPA 1964); In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968); In re White, 405 F.2d 904, 160 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Van Ornam, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 985); and In re Goodman, 29 USPQ 2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12/100,051, claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No.11/120,508, and claims 1-21 of Patent No. 10/235,716.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite means or steps that are substantially the same and that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b) would overcome an actual or provisional rejection on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.78(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathai et al (US 2007/0214023 A1) in view of Lewis et al (US 2014/0372153 A1).
Ref 1, Mathai discloses a computer system comprising: a hail data evaluation computer system including: one or more hail history server processors coupled to a risk mitigation computer system, configured to:
receive, from a remote requester device, a hail history score request, the hail history score request including a hail location and a hail period date range, the remote requester device (para [0031}; via the weather event and risk report system 1, FIGs. 1-11, process and analyze weather data...to provide reports...) being configured to:
display a hail history score request interface, the hail history score request interface including a hail location input for receiving geographic location data to be provided in the hail history score request, a hail location selector for selecting a geographic location data type for the hail location, the selectable geographic location data types comprising address data and latitude/longitude data, and a hail period date range input (para [0032[; via the system 1 analyze weather events, tornedos, hail, wind gusts ... a mapping engine server 20, a spatial database 60...include a receiving/display circuit ...[0040]; via the orchestration tool 85 receive new data from a weather service 5, via the spatial database 60 ...[0005]; via automated system real-time meteorically data/specific weather information/local Doppler radar/threshold value/graphic display/insurance risk data to generate reports...);
obtain latitude/longitude data for the geographic location data (para [0013-15] via geographic address data...in an integrated report...the system reports aggregation of total risk...reporting engine interface...[0058], FIG. 5; via a severe weather event/hail data...the hail size of 3.25 inches...threshold value...the map area 100 in FIGs. 5 and 6....polygon 120a...[0059], FIG.7; via the map area l00 depicts polygon 131-139 includes location and satellite imagery...);
automatically access hail history data in one or more hail history databases based on the latitude/longitude data, and a date range corresponding to the hail period date range, the one or more hail history databases further comprising historical hail evaluation data including fraud flags generated for geographic locations (para [0061-62], figs. 10-11; via the chart 102 depicts the threshold value ...from the portal website 35...the reporting engine 95 calculates a TIV of $1.291 billion.... [0063-64], FIGs. 10-11; via includes a “key” area 105 to show increasing values...risk data with real-time meteorological data);
automatically evaluate the accessed information to calculate a hail history score value and determine whether to generate a fraud flag corresponding to one of (i) an underwriting decision, and (ii) a claims processing decision, wherein the hail history score value is based on a number of hail events experienced at the geographic location during the hail period date range .... (para [0063-64], FIGs. 10-11; via includes a “key” area 105 to show increasing values...risk data with real-time meteorological data …); and
[[transmit, to the risk mitigation computer system, historical hail evaluation data including the calculated hail history score value, and the fraud flag, responsive to a positive determination to generate the fraud flag.]]
Mathai does not explicitly disclose the step to transmit, to the risk mitigation computer system, historical hail evaluation data including the calculated hail history score value, and the fraud flag, responsive to a positive determination to generate the fraud flag.
However, Lewis being in the same field of invention discloses the step to transmit, to the risk mitigation computer system, historical hail evaluation data including the calculated hail history score value, and the fraud flag, responsive to a positive determination to generate the fraud flag (para [0023]; via coverage for losses from US tornedo and/or hailstorm events, hurricane or earthquake insured losses…hailstorm reports within each state by the national Weather Service….).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time of invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Mathai to include the disclosures as taught by Lewis to facilitate risk mitigation by National Weather Service Forecast.
Ref claim 2, Mathai discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more data storage devices storing the one or more hail history databases (para [0058]; fig. 5; via severe weather/hail size of 3.24 inches... ).
Ref claim 3, Mathai discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the one or more hail history server processors are further configured to periodically receive radar-based hail data from a third-party weather reporting service and store the radar-based hail data in the one or more hail history databases (para [0058]; fig. 5; via severe weather/hail size of 3.24 inches... ).
Ref claim 4, Mathai discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the radar-based hail data includes hail size data calculated from the radar-based hail data; and wherein the hail history score is further based upon a size of hail associated with each of the hail events experienced at the geographic location during the hail period date range (para [0058]; fig. 5; via severe weather/hail size of 3.24 inches... ).
Ref claim 5, Mathai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the hail history score request interface further comprises: a hail size selector for selecting a minimum hail size to include in the hail history score; wherein the one or more hail history databases further store hail size data, and are accessed further based upon the minimum hail size (para [0058]; fig. 5; via severe weather/hail size of 3.24 inches... ).
Ref claim 6, Mathai discloses the system of claim 5, wherein calculation of the hail history score value comprises: for each of a plurality of hail sizes, assigning a number of risk points, and evaluating the data accessed from the one or more hail history databases to determine a total number of risk points associated with a time period (para [0058]; fig. 5; via severe weather/hail size of 3.24 inches... ).
Ref claim 7, Mathai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the selectable geographic location data types further comprise data for a plurality of locations; wherein the hail history server processor is further configured to, responsive to the received hail history score request including the geographic location data comprising the data for the plurality of locations: obtain latitude/longitude data for the geographic location data comprising the address data; and batch process the data for each of the plurality of locations to calculate the hail history score value and corresponding fraud flags, based upon information in the one or more hail history databases, for each of the plurality of locations; and wherein the historical hail evaluation data transmitted to the risk mitigation system for each of the plurality of locations includes the fraud flag generated for each of the plurality of locations (para [0058]; FIG. 5; via severe weather/hail size of 3.24 inches... weather history for the hail storm…).
Ref claim 8, Mathai discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising the risk mitigation computer system, the risk mitigation computer system comprising an anti-fraud wizard configured to, responsive to receipt of a fraud flag, implement a workflow process to (i) obtain, by an underwriting system, a physical inspection of a property in relation to the underwriting decision relating to the property, and (ii) process a property damage claim for the property, on a claims processing system, based upon a possibility that a hail event did not occur with respect to the geographic location (para [0059], FIG. 7; via Tornedo data property location point…).
Ref claim 9, Mathai discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: one or more predictive model training component computer processors configured to train, based upon historical claim transaction data and the stored sensor-based hail data, one or more predictive models configured to evaluate hail claims data; the one or more predictive models, wherein the one or more predictive models are coupled to the one or more hail history databases, the risk mitigation computer system, and the one or more hail history server processors; wherein the one or more hail history server processors are configured to apply the one or more predictive models when automatically evaluating the accessed information to calculate the hail history score value and determine whether to generate the fraud flag corresponding to one of (i) the underwriting decision, and (ii) the claims processing decision; and wherein the one or more predictive models are continuously adapted to changing hail data patterns by activating the one or more predictive model training component computer processors to update the one or more predictive models with current hail claim data and hail claim processing results (para [0031}; via the weather event and risk report system 1, FIGs. 1-11, process and analysis weather data …to provide reports…).
Ref claim 10, Mathai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hail history server processors are further configured to determine a hail risk score for a geographic location based on: a claim frequency corresponding to historical hail size; historical hail size at the geographic location within the hail period date range; and number of hail events recorded at the geographic location within the hail period date range. for each of the plurality of locations (para [0013-15] via geographic address data...in an integrated report...the system reports aggregation of total risk...reporting engine interface...).
Claim 11 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 12-14 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 3-5 respectively.
Ref claim 15, Mathai discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the hail location input for receiving address data comprises a hail location selector for selecting a type of geographic location data to be provided in the hail history score request, wherein the selectable geographic location data types comprise one of address data and latitude/longitude data (para [0013-15] via geographic address data...in an integrated report...the system reports aggregation of total risk...reporting engine interface...).
Ref claim 16, Mathai discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the selectable geographic location data types further comprise data for a plurality of locations; and further comprising:
by the one or more hail history server processors, responsive to the received hail history score request including the geographic location data comprising the data for the plurality of locations:
obtaining latitude/longitude data for the geographic location data comprising the address data; and batch processing the data for each of the plurality of locations to calculate the hail history score value and corresponding fraud flags, based upon information in the one or more hail history databases, for each of the plurality of locations; and wherein the historical hail evaluation data transmitted to the risk mitigation system for each of the plurality of locations includes the fraud flag generated for each of the plurality of locations (para [0013-15] via geographic address data...in an integrated report...the system reports aggregation of total risk...reporting engine interface...).
Ref claim 17, Mathai discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: by an anti-fraud wizard of the risk mitigation computer system: responsive to receipt of a fraud flag, implementing a workflow process to:
(i) obtain, by an underwriting system, a physical inspection of a property in relation to the underwriting decision relating to the property, and (ii) process a property damage claim for the property, on a claims processing system, based upon a possibility that a hail event did not occur with respect to the geographic location (para [0013-15] via geographic address data...in an integrated report...the system reports aggregation of total risk...reporting engine interface...).
Ref claim 18, Mathai discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
by one or more predictive model training component computer processors, training, based upon historical claim transaction data and the stored sensor-based hail data, one or more predictive models configured to evaluate hail claims data; wherein the one or more predictive models are coupled to the one or more hail history databases, the risk mitigation computer system, and the one or more hail history server processors; by the one or more hail history server processors, applying the one or more predictive models when automatically evaluating the accessed information to calculate the hail history score value and determine whether to generate the fraud flag corresponding to (I) one of the underwriting decision, and (ii) the claims processing decision; and continuously adapting the one or more predictive models to changing hail data patterns by activating the one or more predictive model training component computer processors to update the one or more predictive models with current hail claim data and hail claim processing results (para [0031}; via the weather event and risk report system 1, FIGs. 1-11, process and analysis weather data …to provide reports…).
Ref claim 19, Mathai discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the training the one or more predictive models comprises training the one or more predictive models based on data indicative of: (i) a roof type, (ii) a roof pitch, (iii) a building type, and (iv) solar panel information (para [0031}; via the weather event and risk report system 1, FIGs. 1-11, process and analysis weather data …to provide reports…).
Ref claim 20, Mathai discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising, by the one or more hail history server processors, determining a hail risk score for a geographic location based on: a claim frequency corresponding to historical hail size; historical hail size at the geographic location within the hail period date range; and number of hail events recorded at the geographic location within the hail period date range (para [0013-15] via geographic address data...in an integrated report...the system reports aggregation of total risk...reporting engine interface...).
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daron Sneed (US 2014/0176362 A1) discloses Methods and Systems for Inferring Localized Hail Intensity.
Matt Rosauer et al (US 2007/0016542 A1) discloses Risk Modeling System.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 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, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights