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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 20, claim 20 does not end with a period. The Examiner suggests the applicant to
amend the claim to insert a period at the end of the claim.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection
Applicant’s representative argues that: the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claims as currently amended, and because the claims call for an artificial intelligence and an image algorithm.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and also a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk).
Here, the claimed concept falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}2)UD, such as the category of functions of organizing human activities such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, migrating risk) because it amounts to the concept of determining damages of photos of inside and outside a house for insurance purposes.
The BRI of these limitations describes steps or functions of “performing artificial intelligence measurement and damage assessment based on the uploaded house photos, and generating an underwriting or claiming report”.
Therefore the claims recite an abstract concept.
At least the independent claim 1 does not even recite a computer or processor to perform the claimed function. The claims merely uses an AI tool to perform the claimed functions.
Independent claim 8 uses generic computer technology (such as a generic processor with a memory The dependent claims use a mobile device to take images of objects).
The independent claims use an artificial intelligence model to and generated a detection of qualities of an image) for receiving data or information, and providing the data to a user interface and for insurance claim purposes. Applicant is directed to e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
As such, claims 1 and 8 recite receiving image data or information, and providing the data to a user interface for damage assessment purposes, as these functions are not a technological implementation or improvement of a technological field.
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of generic devices to finally provide data to a user interface.
Accordingly, the additional elements (such as a generic artificial model, mobile device and a processor with a memory) do not improve (1) the processor with memory, the mobile device or and user interface, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (computing device or system) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
None of the steps, functions and/or elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed artificial model, processor, user interface or mobile device are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 6-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then argues (regarding Step 2A) “in the event that amended claim 1 is considered as being an abstract idea, in step 2A-Prong 2 (integration into a practical application), Applicant submits that the claims are generally directed to a method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images, by using a device for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images disposed in a server of an inspection party, and including a processor and a non-transitory memory electrically coupled to the processor.
In response, the claims as now amended still fail to recite technological implementation details of how the claimed functions are being realized. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." Beteiro, LLC V. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The specification does not even provide details of a specific architecture or means or structures or specific computer executed modules for performing the claimed functions. Taken claim 1 as an example, now adds the features found in now cancelled claims 4 and 5. In repeating claim 1 in its entirety, claim 1 now recites the abstract idea absent the bolded limitations:
A method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
a, performing artificial intelligence detection and determination in real time during a process of taking house photos, and uploading taken house photos to a cloud end; wherein the house photos comprise a roof photo and/or photos of inside and outside of the house;
b, performing artificial intelligence measurement and damage assessment based on the uploaded house photos, and generating an underwriting or claiming report.
wherein the step a comprises:
step S31: obtaining house photos taken by a photographer;
step S32: calling an image algorithm or an artificial intelligence model to perform real-time determination, wherein the real-time determination comprises: determining image clarities, determining far and close degrees of image sizes, determining whether an image comprises an entire wall body, and determining whether an image is a roof or a facade;
step S33, generating a detection result and displaying it on a user interface,
wherein the step S33 comprises: if it is determined that image quality of the photographer is not up to standard or that shooting was not performed according to instruction, displaying prompt information;
providing the photographer with corresponding suggestion of re-shooting or ignoring the prompt information after confirming that shooting is correct.
The claims "do[es] not improve the functioning of the artificial intelligence which is not event indicated to be executed by a processor, make[s] it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. V. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019). "Nothing in the claim[s], understood in light of the specification, calls for anything but preexisting computers and displays, programmed using techniques known to skilled artisans, to present the new arrangement of information." Brumfield V. IBG LLC, 97 F Ath 854, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The claims also do not show a technical improvement in the architecture of a processor using a computing logic of the computing system or the mobile device. The recited functions involve generic or conventional functions and setup of a basic computer system.
The mere recitation of an artificial intelligence to measure (gather data) image data taken by a photographer and to perform expected functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention as stated in Alice Corp., 134S.Ct. at 2358; DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cri. 2014) ("And after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. (citation omitted)). Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement' an abstract idea 'on a computer', that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (internal citation omitted). The claimed artificial intelligence without a processor to executes its claimed functions even assuming such would still be considered as claimed as merely a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic computing system or processor with a user interface and mobile device) for gathering image data and perform damage assessment such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
Accordingly, the applicant’s argument in this respect is not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative then argues “[Step 2B] In the case Examiner does not agree with Applicant's analysis of step 2A-Prong 1 and step 2A-Prong 2, Applicant goes rather and goes to step 2B of the Mayo analysis, otherwise known as the "inventive concept idea." Applicant submits that amended claim 1 and its dependent claims amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because these steps amount to more than merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and improve on an existing technological process of the identifying risks or damages from images for insurance underwriting and claiming.
In response, the cited prior art as noted, comprises a computing system and a mobile device for performing the claimed invention.
The reliance of a processor with a memory and a user interface or computing system or mobile device to perform its routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive incept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
As noted in the applicant’s specification, there is not a specific structure or computer components to perform the claimed functions. The generic processor with a memory, user interface and mobile device can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. However, there is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification to generate the claimed functions. The claimed processor with memory, user interface and mobile device noted in the applicant's specification are routine computer processors or computers performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore., there is not a showing or description of generating the damage assessment to effect specific improvements to the processor or artificial intelligence model or computing system or mobile device. Furthermore there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the processor, user interface or mobile device in assessing damage from a captured image of an object, as the claims in Enfish had performed their claimed invention via a “self-referential table” for a computer database. Applicant is being referred to Enfish, 822, F.3d at 1327, 1337.
These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the processor, user interface or mobile device or the architecture of the overall system.
The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, are merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The rejection of the claims 1-3 and 6-20 as currently amended is found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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.
Specifically, claim 8 is directed to a system. Claim 1 is directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
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).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
A method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
a. performing artificial intelligence detection and determination in real time during a process of taking house photos, and uploading taken house photos to a cloud end; wherein the house photos comprise a roof photo and/or photos of inside and outside of the house;
b. performing artificial intelligence measurement and damage assessment based on the uploaded house photos, and generating an underwriting or claiming report.
wherein the step a comprises:
step S31: obtaining house photos taken by a photographer;
step S32: calling an image algorithm or an artificial intelligence model to perform real-time determination, wherein the real-time determination comprises: determining image clarities, determining far and close degrees of image sizes, determining whether an image comprises an entire wall body, and determining whether an image is a roof or a facade;
step S33, generating a detection result and displaying it on a user interface,
wherein the step S33 comprises: if it is determined that image quality of the photographer is not up to standard or that shooting was not performed according to instruction, displaying prompt information;
providing the photographer with corresponding suggestion of re-shooting or ignoring the prompt information after confirming that shooting is correct.
Claim 2 recites:
The method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images according to claim 1, wherein before the step a, the method further comprises:
when a detection requirement of an insurance company comprises a roof, dispatching an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to take photos of the roof; wherein the UAV comprises a consumer grade UAV.
Claim 3 recites:
The method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images according to claim 1, wherein before the step a, the method further comprises:
when a detection requirement of an insurance company comprises inside and outside of a house, using a mobile phone to take photos of inside and outside of the house; wherein the mobile phone comprises a consumer grade mobile phone.
Claim 6 recites:
The method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images according to claim 1, wherein the step b comprises:
step S41, receiving uploaded house photos;
step S42, performing pre-processing for the house photos, wherein the pre-processing comprises denoising and adjusting brightness and contrast;
step S43, calling an artificial intelligence model to perform measurement and damage assessment for pre-processed house photos; extracting image features and analyzing to recognize risk items or damage items;
step S44, generating an underwriting or claiming report;
step S45, storing processed data and updating database.
Claim 7 recites:
The method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images according to claim 6, wherein the step S44 comprises:
forming a claiming report based on the measurement and damage assessment; if initial review is not passed, notifying missed photo information, and performing photo data collection for the second time.
Claim 8 recites:
A system for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images
comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory configured to store one or more programs which, when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
perform artificial intelligence detection and determination in real time during a process of taking house photos, and upload taken house photos to a cloud end;
wherein the house photos comprise a roof photo and/or photos of inside and outside of the house; and
perform measurement and damage assessment based on the uploaded house photos, and generate an underwriting or claiming report,
wherein the processor further;
obtains house photos taken by a photographer;
calls an image algorithm or an artificial intelligence model to perform real-time determination, wherein the real-time determination comprises: determining image clarities, determining far and close degrees of image sizes, determining whether an image comprises an entire wall body, and determining whether an image is a roof or a facade;
generates a detection result and displaying it on a user interface,
wherein the step S33 comprises: if it is determined that image quality of the photographer is not up to standard or that shooting was not performed according to instruction, displaying prompt information;
provides the photographer with corresponding suggestion of re-shooting or ignoring the prompt information after confirming that shooting is correct.
Claim 9 recites:
The system for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images according to claim 8, wherein the processor further:
when a detection requirement of an insurance company comprises a roof, dispatch an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to take photos of the roof.
Claim 10 recites:
The system for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images according to claim 8, wherein the processor further when a detection requirement of an insurance company comprises inside and outside of a house, use a mobile phone to take photos of inside and outside of the house.
Claim 11 recites: wherein dispatching an UAV to take photos of the roof comprises: setting flight paths and task areas of the UAV, wherein the flight paths comprise overview map shooting 360-degree flight shooting, overall claim object shooting, and close-range shooting for claim object details. Farnsworth et al teach providing flight paths showing overview map shooting
Claim 12 recites: wherein the overview map shooting requires a whole house to be covered by an image, and segments the image in real time to detect whether the whole house is within the image by a deployed algorithm.
Claim 13 recites: wherein the 360-degree flight shooting requires one of S-shaped and Zigzag shaped shooting, wherein each image has a certain degree of overlap with a previous image.
Claim 14 recites: wherein using a mobile phone to take photos of inside and outside of the house comprises: when shooting exterior of a house, indicating a photographer of the mobile phone to perform a series of shots for each individual house and shoot each house from different angles.
Claim 15 recites: wherein using a mobile phone to take photos of inside and outside of the house comprises: when shooting interior of a house, indicating a photographer of the mobile phone to perform a series of shots for each individual house and important objects, wherein the important objects comprise at one or more combinations of air conditioning and ventilation systems, drainage and sewage systems, pipelines, water and electricity meters, water heaters, stairs, doors and windows. See column 3, lines 31-67 of Farnsworth et al.
Claim 16 recites: wherein the processor further: sets flight paths and task areas of the UAV, wherein the flight paths comprise overview map shooting, 360-degree flight shooting, overall claim object shooting, and close-range shooting for claim object details. See column 3, lines 31-67 of Farnsworth et al.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the overview map shooting requires a whole house to be covered by an image, and segments the image in real time to detect whether the whole house is within the image by a deployed algorithm.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the 360-degree flight shooting requires one of S-shaped and Zigzag shaped shooting, wherein each image has a certain degree of overlap with a previous image.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the processor further: when shooting exterior of a house, indicates a photographer of the mobile phone to perform a series of shots for each individual house and shoot each house from different angles.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the processor further: when shooting interior of a house, indicate a photographer of the mobile phone to perform a series of shots for each individual house and important objects, wherein the important objects comprise at one or more combinations of air conditioning and ventilation systems, drainage and sewage systems, pipelines, water and electricity meters, water heaters, stairs, doors and windows.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, migrating risk) because it amounts to the concept of determining damages of photos of inside and outside a house for insurance purposes.
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of :
“performing artificial intelligence measurement and damage assessment based on the uploaded house photos, and generating an underwriting or claiming report”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
Performing steps by a processor or generic machine, or generic artificial intelligence” and “using a mobile phone to take photos” merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05(1).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Using a generic processor or artificial intelligence and using a phone to take photos are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed using a phone and a generic artificial for performing measurement and damage assessment based on uploaded house photos and generating an underwriting or claiming report.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as it does not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of generating an underwriting or claimant report.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a processor or an “artificial intelligence” not executed by a processor, even assuming such, and a “user interface” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be one or more of a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed “artificial intelligence” is noted to a be a generic computer for performing known computer functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor with a memory”, “artificial intelligence” not executed by a processor and a “user interface” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the 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.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections.
Applicant’s representative states and argues:
“Farnsworth merely discloses to determine damage by image processing techniques and
fails to disclose to determine image clarities. In addition, Farnsworth merely disclose to analyze the data (e.g., image data) to determine if a roof at a certain coordinate has all of the corners and edges and whether said corners and edges of said roof appear to be damaged. Farnsworth fails to disclose to determine whether an image comprises an entire wall body, and whether an image is a roof or a façade. Thus, Farnsworth fails to disclose the features "determining image clarities, determining far and close degrees of image sizes, determining whether an image comprises an entire wall body, and determining whether an image is a roof or a facade" as recited in amended claim 1”.
In response, the applicant’s arguments are moot. A rejection of the claims as now
amended is found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnsworth et al. (US Patent No. 10,354,386) in view of Davis et al (US Pat. No. 11,715,162).
As per claims 1 and 8, Farnsworth et al disclose a system and method for taking photos or images
of a house (inside and outside) so as to determine and assess potential damages of the house for insurance purposes. See the abstract of Farnsworth et al. Accordingly, Farnsworth et al teach or disclose:
A method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
performing artificial intelligence detection and determination in real time during a process of taking house photos, and uploading taken house photos to a cloud end (col 7, lines 49-57 and column 15,lines 10-14 of Farnsworth et al);
wherein the house photos comprise a roof photo and/or photos of inside and outside of the house (see column 10, lines 11-27 of Farnsworth et al.);
performing artificial intelligence measurement and damage assessment based on the uploaded house photos, and generating an underwriting or claiming report. See column 20, line 57 to column 21, line 50 of Farnsworth et al.
Farnsworth et al do not explicitly teach obtaining house photos taken by a photographer.
Farnsworth et al teach calling an image algorithm or an artificial intelligence model to perform real-time determination, wherein the real-time determination comprises: determining image clarities, determining far and close (column 11, lines 14-23 as using a zoom factor) degrees of image sizes (see column 5, lines 28-32 as Farnsworth et al. teach determining the dimension of a captured image), determining whether an image comprises an entire wall body (column 10, lines 24-28 and column 10, lines 48-52 of Farnsworth et al.), and determining whether an image is a roof or a façade (column 10, lines 11-13 of Farnsworth et al.);
generates a detection result and displaying it on a user interface (as image data are captured and/or sent to a remote location which would be displayed on a computer screen for viewing and insurance analysis purposes. See column 10 lines 48-65 of Farnsworth et al.);
wherein if it is determined that image quality is not up to standard or that shooting was not performed according to instruction, re-shooting or ignoring after confirming that shooting is correct (see column 7, line 59 to column 8, line 5 of Farnsworth et al as Farnsworth et al. state:
“Further, unmanned vehicle 100 may be enabled with functionality to analyze gathered data (e.g., an image) and determined whether the image sufficiently contains what is needed. For example, if unmanned vehicle 100 has been tasked with identifying the status of a residential home, and the vehicle gathers a visual image of the home from a relatively large distance (e.g., 1,000 feet), the image may be analyzed to determine that a closer or more zoomed-in image is needed to enable the functionality and analysis related to identifying what damage, if any, has occurred to the home”.
While Farnsworth et al do not provide specific details of obtaining photos taken by a photographer and provide a prompt to retake the image of an item inside the house.
This is well known in the insurance system wherein a house or items inside a home and/house are intended to be insured.
Providing a prompt to a photographer to retake the image of an item is taught by Davis et al.
Davis et al teach a system and method allowing a user to capture images of a house or items inside a home to be insured see the abstract and Figure 4 of Davis et al.
Davis et al teach “if it is determined that image quality of the photographer is not up to standard or that shooting was not performed according to instruction, the processor further displays prompt information; provides the photographer with corresponding suggestion of re-shooting or ignores the prompt information after confirming that shooting is correct. Applicant is directed to column 11, lines 29-65 of Davis et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Davis et al into the system and method of Farnsworth et al. at the effective filing date of the invention in order to assure that required images of the houses and items inside a house are taken based on the type of insurance coverage of a given customer for dispute resolution purposes.
As per claims 2 and 9, Farnsworth et al teach or disclose the method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images according to claim 1, wherein before the step a, the method further comprises:
when a detection requirement of an insurance company comprises a roof, dispatching an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to take photos of the roof; wherein the UAV comprises a consumer grade UAV (see column 3, lines 31-52 of Farnsworth et al.).
As per claims 3 and 10, the teachings of Farnsworth et al are discussed above. Farnsworth et al teach:
when a detection requirement of an insurance company comprises inside and outside of a house, using a UAV to take photos of inside and outside of the house. (See column 11, lines 14-23, column 10, lines 11-27 of Farnsworth et al.).
Farnsworth et al also teach using cell phone towers to connect a phone to download pictures or images of the inside or outside a house. See column 15, lines 17-25 of Farnsworth et al. Using a mobile phone is not explicitly taught by Farnsworth et al.
Using cell phones such as a consumer grade mobile phone connected to a cell phone tower for taking pictures or images is well-practiced in the art at the effective filing date of the invention.
Applicant is directed to column 11, line 14-55 of Davis et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a user taken pictures of the inside or outside of a house once it is detected of a requirement using a mobile phone in the system and method of Farnsworth et al as taught by Davis et al at the effective filing date of the invention, in order to make it simpler to have a user such as a home owner or an insurance agent to take pictures of a specific or required area of the house as may be required in a claim that is filed.
As per claim 6, the teachings of Farnsworth et al are discussed above.
Farnsworth et al teach or disclose: the method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images according to claim 1 (see the abstract of Farnsworth et al), wherein the step b comprises:
step $41, receiving uploaded house photos;
step S42, performing pre-processing for the house photos, wherein the pre-processing comprises denoising and adjusting brightness and contrast (see column 5, lines 32 to column 6, line 24 of Farnsworth et al.);
step S43, calling an artificial intelligence model to perform measurement and damage assessment for pre-processed house photos (see column 20, line 57 to column 21, line 50 of Farnsworth et al.);
extracting image features and analyzing to recognize risk items or damage items (see column 7, lines 26-34 of Farnsworth et al);
step $44, generating an underwriting or claiming report (see column 20, line 57 to column 21, line 50 of Farnsworth et al.
step S45, storing processed data and updating database (column 11, lines 47-53 of Farnsworth et al.).
As per claim 7, Farnsworth et al disclose a method for insurance underwriting and claiming using house images according to claim 6, wherein the step S44 comprises:
forming a claiming report based on the measurement and damage assessment (see column 20, line 57 to column 21, line 50 of Farnsworth et al);
Farnsworth et al do not explicitly state:
if initial review is not passed, notifying missed photo information, and performing photo data collection for the second time.
However, Farnsworth et al teach determining resolutions and angles for performing data collection at different time for a given object. See column 6, lines 38-47 and column 5, lines 32 to column 6, line 24 of Farnsworth et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Farnsworth et al and Davis et al to note that “if initial review is not passed, notifying missed photo information, and performing photo data collection for the second time” so that the quality of a desires image is obtained in order to enhance image processing of the image.
As per claims 15 and 20, the teachings of Farnsworth et al are discussed above. Farnsworth et al does not explicitly state: wherein using a mobile phone to take photos of inside and outside of the house comprises: when shooting interior of a house, indicating a photographer of the mobile phone to perform a series of shots for each individual house and important objects.
Farnsworth et al. teach taken images of one or more combinations of air conditioning and ventilation systems, drainage and sewage systems, pipelines, water and electricity meters, water heaters, stairs, doors and windows. See column 3, lines 31-67 of Farnsworth et al.
Indicating a person such as a photographer to use cell phones such as a consumer grade mobile phone connected to a cell phone tower for taking pictures or images is well-practiced in the art at the effective filing date of the invention.
Applicant is directed to column 11, lines 14-55 of Davis et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a user taken pictures of the inside or outside of a house once it is detected of a requirement using a mobile phone in the system and method of Farnsworth et al as taught by Davis et al at the effective filing date of the invention, in order to make it simpler to have a user such as a home owner or an insurance agent to take pictures of a specific or required area of the house as may be required in a claim that is filed.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Farnsworth et al. (US Patent No. 10,354,386) in view of Davis et al (US Pat. No. 11,715,162) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above in further view of Marsh (US Pub. No. 2022/0398762 A1).
As per claims 11 and 16, the teachings of Farnsworth et al and Davis et al are discussed above. The combination of Farnsworth et al and Davis et al do not explicitly recite: wherein the processor further: sets flight paths and task areas of the UAV, wherein the flight paths comprise overview map shooting, 360-degree flight shooting, overall claim object shooting, and close-range shooting for claim object details.
Farnsworth et al teach flight paths with an overview map for shooting images of a desired object. See column 3, lines 31-67 of Farnsworth et al.
Marsh discloses a system and method for insuring a building by generating a plurality of images of the building for analysis purposes. See the abstract of Marsh.
Marsh further teaches a 360-degree shooting of the building in a panorama view. See paragraphs [0033] and [0094] of Marsh.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Marsh into the combination of Farnsworth et al and Davis et al in order to obtain a panorama view of the building thus making it a more appealing view of the building.
As per claims 13 and 18 the teachings of Farnsworth et al and Davis et al are discussed above. The combined teaching of Farnsworth et al and Davis et al do not explicitly mention:
wherein the 360-degree flight shooting requires one of S-shaped and Zigzag shaped shooting, wherein each image has a certain degree of overlap with a previous image.
Marsh discloses a system and method for insuring a building by generating a plurality of images of the building for analysis purposes. See the abstract of Marsh.
Marsh further teaches a 360-degree shooting of the building in a panorama view. See paragraphs [0033] and [0094] of Marsh. An S-shaped or Zigzag shaped shooting are ones of a plurality of desired shooting patterns by an individual in shooting a target.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Marsh by providing desired shooting path into the combination of Farnsworth et al and Davis et al in order to obtain a panorama view of the building thus making it a more appealing view of the building.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnsworth et al.
(US Patent No. 10,354,386), Davis et al (US Pat. No. 11,715,162) and Marsh (US Pub. No. 2022/0398762 A1) as applied to claims 11 and 16 above in further view of Collins et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0265193 A).
As per claims 12 and 17, the teachings of Farnsworth et al and Davis et al and Marsh are discussed above. The combination does not explicitly state: wherein the overview map shooting requires a whole house to be covered by an image, and segments the image in real time to detect whether the whole house is within the image by a deployed algorithm.
Farnsworth et al teach providing a map for shooting of a whole house.
Collins et al teach taking or shooting different images at different angles of a house. Applicant is directed to figure 5 and paragraph [0047] of Collins et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Collins et al into the system and method Farnsworth et al, Davis et al and Marsh in order combine images at different angles or view of the whole house especially in the case where one image of the house is impossible or difficult to take.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnsworth et al. (US Patent No. 10,354,386) and Davis et al (US Pat. No. 11,715,162) as applied to claims 3 and 10 above in further view of Collins et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0265193 A).
As per claims 14 and 19, the teachings of Farnsworth et al and Davis et al are discussed above. The combination of Farnsworth et al do and Davis et al do not explicitly teach: wherein the processor further: when shooting exterior of a house, indicates a photographer of the mobile phone to perform a series of shots for each individual house and shoot each house from different angles.
Collins et al teach a system and method for capturing different angles of a house intended to be insured. See paragraphs [0063] and [0107] of Collins et al where it is stated:
[0107] The number of images being reviewed can be from as few as one (depending on the application), to billions of images. Further, multiple images from the same property may be reviewed at the same time. For example, images taken from different sources, at different times, or from different angles. Review of multiple images over time can be used to determine trends, establish a pattern, or to discover something that happens infrequently. The purpose of using views from different angles might be to establish a measurement, such as the height of a fence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Collins et al. into the combined system and method of Farnsworth et al and Davis et al in order to establish a measurement such as a height of a fence as suggested by Collins et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights