DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/18/2024 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 01/30/2026.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is withdrawn in view of the Amendment filed on 01/30/2026.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the Amendment filed on 01/30/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 12 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 2, 4-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to an apparatus, a process and a manufacture, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites:
A system for collecting crash data at a crash site of a crash, the system comprising at least one memory and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory and with an autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone configured to engage with an emergency response vehicle,
the at least one processor configured to:
receive a pre-generated flight path for the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the pre-generated flight path generated based upon a GPS crash location associated with the crash site, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone being engaged to an emergency response vehicle traveling to the GPS crash location; and
once the emergency response vehicle arrives at the crash site, control the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to disengage from the emergency response vehicle and to fly in accordance with the pre-generated flight path at the GPS crash location to collect crash data associated with the crash site to facilitate determining an extent of damage caused by the crash;
while controlling the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to fly in accordance with the pre-generated flight path, receive data captured by one or more sensors of the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the data identifying a location of one or more obstacles;
adjust the pre-generated flight path based upon the location of the one or more obstacles; and
control the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to fly in accordance with the adjusted pre-generated flight path.
Claim 12 recites:
A computer-implemented method for collecting crash data at a crash site of a crash, the computer-implemented method performed by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory and with an autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone configured to engage with an emergency response vehicle, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by the at lest one processor, a pre-generated flight path for the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the pre-generated flight path generated based upon the GPS crash location associated with the crash sit, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone being engaged to an emergency response vehicle traveling to the GPS crash location; and
once the emergency response vehicle arrives at the crash site, controlling, by the at least one processor, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to disengage from the emergency response vehicle and to fly in accordance with the pre-generated flight path at the GPS crash location to collect crash data associated with the crash site to facilitate determining an extent of damage caused by the crash;
while controlling the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to fly in accordance with the pre-generated flight path, receiving, by the at least one processor, data captured by one or more sensors of the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the data identifying a location of one or more obstacles;
adjusting, by the at least one processor, the pre-generated flight path based upon the location of the one or more obstacles; and
controlling, by the at least one processor, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to fly in accordance with the adjusted pre-generated flight path.
Claim 18 recites:
At least one non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory and with an autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone configured to engage with an emergency response vehicle, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
determine a GPS crash location associated with the crash site;
receive a pre-generated flight path for the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the pre-generated flight path generated based upon a GPS crash location associated with the crash site, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone being engaged to an emergency response vehicle traveling to the GPS crash location; and
once the emergency response vehicle arrives at the crash site, control the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to disengage from the emergency response vehicle and to fly in accordance with the pre-generated flight path at the GPS crash location to collect crash data associated with the crash site to facilitate determining an extent of damage caused by the crash;
while controlling the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to fly in accordance with the pre-generated flight path, receiving, by the at least one processor, data captured by one or more sensors of the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the data identifying a location of one or more obstacles;
adjusting, by the at least one processor, the pre-generated flight path based upon the location of the one or more obstacles; and
controlling, by the at least one processor, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to fly in accordance with the adjusted pre-generated flight path.
Claims 2, 13 and 19 recite:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: adjust the generated flight path of the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone at the crash site to avoid one or more identified obstacles; and control the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to fly the adjusted generated flight path.
Claim 4 and 15 recite:
determine the extent of damage caused by the crash via computer analysis; and analyze the determined extent of damage to handle, adjust, and/or generate an insurance claim for an insured.
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based upon the determined extent of damage, request additional emergency responders respond to the crash site via wireless communication and/or data transmission.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based upon the determined extent of damage, compute a repair or replacement cost estimate associated with the determined extent of damage.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based upon the determined extent of damage, identify potential buildup or adjust at least one insurance claim upward or downward.
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to analyze the crash data to virtually reconstruct the crash site.
Claims 9 and 16 recite:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine (a) the emergency response vehicle has arrived at, or within a vicinity of the GPS crash location, or (b) has stopped moving or is otherwise parked; and once the emergency response vehicle is at the GPS crash location, control one or more vehicle-mounted latches holding the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone in place on the emergency response vehicle to release or otherwise open.
Claims 10 and 17 recite:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate the pre-generated flight path based upon a length and/or width of the crash site or a radius around the crash GPS location.
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the at least one processor is disposed onboard the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers collecting and analyzing insurance related event data. Collecting and analyzing insurance related event data is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “processor” or “at least one processor is disposed onboard the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone” as a mere tool to perform the … steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “generating a pre-generated flight path for the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone based upon the GPS crash location, the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone being engaged to an emergency response vehicle traveling to the GPS crash location” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating the flight path while traveling to the crash location;
the limitation “once the emergency response vehicle arrives at the crash site, controlling the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to disengage from the emergency response vehicle and to fly in accordance with the pre-generated flight path at the GPS crash location to collect crash data associated with the crash site to facilitate determining an extent of damage caused by the crash” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of controlling the drone to disengage from the emergency response vehicle and fly in accordance to the flight path to collect crash data;
the limitation “while controlling the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to fly in accordance with the pre-generated flight path, receive data captured by one or more sensors of the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, the data identifying a location of one or more obstacles” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving data identifying a location or one or more obstacles;
the limitation “adjust the pre-generated flight path based upon the location of the one or more obstacles” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of adjusting the flight path based on the location of the one or more obstacle;
the limitation “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: adjust the pre-generated flight path of the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone at the crash site to avoid one or more identified obstacles; and control the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone to fly the adjusted generated flight path” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of adjusting the generated flight path to avoid one or more identified obstacles;
the limitation “determine the extent of damage caused by the crash via computer analysis; and analyze the determined extent of damage to handle, adjust, and/or generate an insurance claim for an insured” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the extent of the damage and analyzing the determined extent of damage to handle, adjust and or generate an insurance claim;
the limitation “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based upon the determined extent of damage, request additional emergency responders respond to the crash site via wireless communication and/or data transmission” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of requesting additional emergency responders;
the limitation “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based upon the determined extent of damage, compute a repair or replacement cost estimate associated with the determined extent of damage.” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of computing the repair cost;
the limitation “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based upon the determined extent of damage, identify potential buildup or adjust at least one insurance claim upward or downward” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of identifying potential buildup and adjusting the insurance claim upward or downward;
the limitation “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to analyze the crash data to virtually reconstruct the crash site” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of reconstructing the crash site;
the limitation “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine (a) the emergency response vehicle has arrived at, or within a vicinity of the GPS crash location, or (b) has stopped moving or is otherwise parked; and once the emergency response vehicle is at the GPS crash location, control one or more vehicle-mounted latches holding the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone in place on the emergency response vehicle to release or otherwise open” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of releasing the drone to collect information based on the conditions;
the limitation “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate the pre-generated flight path based upon a length and/or width of the crash site or a radius around the crash GPS location” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating the pre-generated flight path.
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the processor in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “non-transitory storage medium” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “via wireless communication and/or data transmission” are generically recited to perform communication steps such as receiving and transmitting.
The additional element(s) of “autonomous or semi-autonomous drone” are generically recited to as a tool to be controlled described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the control is accomplished.
The additional element(s) of “vehicle” and “one or more vehicle-mounted latches holding the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone” are generically recited to as a tool to be controlled to release the drone, described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the control is accomplished.
The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “computer” are appended to abstract elements such as “analysis”, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to collect and analyze insurance related event information amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The recited ordered combination of additional elements includes a generically recited processor instructing a drone to collect and analyze insurance related event information. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 3, 14 and 20 recites “after the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone is airborne at the crash site, identifying, from one or more digital images received from one or more sensors of the autonomous or semi-autonomous drone, i) one or more objects; and ii) a height and/or location of the one or more objects; comparing the height and/or location of the one or more objects to the generated flight path to determine that the one or more objects are currently positioned in the generated flight path as a result of the crash at the crash site; and identifying the one or more objects as being one or more obstacles in the generated flight path based upon the comparison”, which ties the Judicial Exception to the technological environment of an UAV deployed at a crash scene.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument the claims do not recite a Judicial Exception because the claims recite features in addition to the Judicial Exception, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that the recitation of additional elements does not negate the recitation of the Judicial Exception. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument the claims integrate the Judicial Exception into practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the applicant contended that features including the receiving of data identifying a location of one or more obstacles, adjusting the pre-generated flight path based on the location of the obstacles and controlling the drone to fly in accordance with the adjust pre-generated flight path. However, as explained in the rejection, the claims only invoked a generic processor to performing the receiving of data identifying obstacles, adjusting the pre-generated flight path and controlling the drone to fly in accordance to with the adjust pre-generated flight path in a “result-oriented” manner without technological detail on the adjustment of pre-generated flight path and the controlling of the drone. This form of invoking generic computing elements to perform steps of the Judicial Exception (adjusting path to capture data based on identified obstacle) without technological detail of how the desired result is accomplished is consider Mere Instruction to Apply, which does not result in integration of the Judicial Exception into practical application. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument the claims recites “significantly more”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the effort of Mere Instruction to Apply does not result in eligibility. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
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, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights