DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of capture at least one image of a person and an object; convert the captured at least one image to an outline of the person; transmit the converted, captured at least one image for determination of a height or a weight of the person determined from the at least one image; and receive, responsive to the transmitting and as determined, a risk factor corresponding to a rating of risk associated with the person based, at least in part, on the height or the weight of the person determined from the at least one image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention allows for capturing images of a person and analyzing the image to determine a height and weight of the person and determine a risk factor for the person for insurance purposes which is a financial practice (insurance).
The mere nominal recitation of at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements—at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal.
The at least one processor, communication interface, memory, and terminal are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of capturing an image, converting the captured image, transmitting the image, receive a risk factor) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). 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.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 9 and 16 and hence claims 9 and 16 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 9 recites at least one processor of a terminal and claim 16 recites a non- transitory machine-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, a terminal comprising at least one processor, memory and a communication interface that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do 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 elements of using at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim 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. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 11, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 9839376) in view of Bipembi et al., “Calculation of Body Mass Index using Image Processing Techniques”. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Mechatronics. Volume 4, Issue 1, ISSN 2320-5121. July 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280133090_Calculation_of_Body_Mass_Index_using_Image_Processing_Techniques, hereinafter, Bipembi.
Re-claim 1:
***It is noted that the Applicant’s Specification recites, “Accordingly, an insurance policy or product factor, such as an insurance rate or premium, coverage, term, or the like, for that user may be determined based on the low rating for body mass index as a risk factor.”-[0039].
***It is noted that the Applicant’s Specification recites, “the images may be converted into a silhouette, such that only an outline of the individual may be received by the system.” –[0048].
Ross discloses:
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor -Fig. 1;
and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, Fig. 1 and col. 4 lines 28-40 cause a computing device to:
capture at least one image of a person and an object (capture an image of potential customer holding a standard sized object-Fig. 4B items 420-430);
Ross discloses transmitting a captured image to a terminal (client provides pictures to a system that performs BMI calculations –col. 9 lines 23-67);
and receive, responsive to the transmitting and as determined by the terminal, a risk factor corresponding to the rating of risk associated with the person based, at least in part, on the height or the weight of the person (system receives height and weight information as well as pictures of the client and performs automated body mass index calculations based on pictures-col. 9 lines 16-27; “Body mass index (BMI) is a wide known indicator employed in health insurance. Health insurance companies look at body mass index for insurance rating purposes for the reason that BMI is a significant factor correlated with health risk conditions, such as obesity and heart disease.”-see Background, col. 1 lines 23-31; and col. 10 line 65 to col. 11 line 7.
Ross further discloses risk factor corresponding to the rating of risk in col. 11 lines 46-60 –“Next, analytical engine employs regression algorithms for calculating BMI of potential client, which is 26 and corresponds to an obese person (i.e., high rating of BMI as a risk factor)….BMI of 19 corresponds with a normal weight ) ;
Ross fails to disclose converting the captured at least one image to an outline of the person; determination of a height or a weight of the person determined from the at least one image.
Bipembi however, teaches converting a captured image to a silhouette of a person in Abstract, p.1 [outline] and determining a height or a weight of the person from the at least one image-(The height and volume is determined using silhouette analysis.-Abstract, p. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross to include converting a captured image to a silhouette and determining a height or a weight of the person from the at least one image as taught by Bipembi in order to use the image and determined height or weight to calculate a body mass index (BMI) of an individual.
Re-claim 3. Ross discloses wherein the risk factor corresponding to the rating of risk associated with the person is further based on a body mass index and the other of the height or the weight of the person. (system receives height and weight information as well as pictures of the client and performs automated body mass index calculations based on pictures-col. 9 lines 16-27; Ross further discloses risk factor corresponding to the rating of risk in col. 11 lines 46-60 –“Next, analytical engine employs regression algorithms for calculating BMI of potential client, which is 26 and corresponds to an obese person (i.e., high rating of BMI as a risk factor)….BMI of 19 corresponds with a normal weight (i.e., low rating of BMI as a risk factor as defined by applicant in Spec. [0039])).
Claims 9, 16 have similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 11 and 17 have similar limitations found in claims 1 and 3 above in combination, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
8. Claim(s) 2, 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. in view of Bipembi in further view of Walker et al. (US 2012/0209513).
Re-claim 2: Ross discloses wherein the object includes a known size (capture an image of potential customer holding a standard sized object-Fig. 4B items 420-430) Ross fails to disclose the object is at least one of: a door frame, a door, an appliance, a window, or a vehicle.
Walker however, teaches image capture wherein objects such as doors in an image are used as a scale reference. -see [0047].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the automated BMI calculation system of Ross the ability to use a door as an object of known size as a scale reference as taught by Walker in order to use an object of a known standard of measure as a reference to determine size of another object.
Claim 10, 20 have similar limitations found in claim 2 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
9. Claim(s) 4, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 9839376) in view of Bipembi in further view of Bartlett et al. (WO 2014/124014 A1).
Re-claim 4. Ross fails to disclose wherein a verification of an identity of the person further includes: receiving a captured image of a government issued identification; and verifying the identity of the person by comparing the captured image of the government issued identification to additional information. Bartlett however, disclose a capture device used to authenticate a user by taking an image of documentation of a user such as a driver’s license or passport to be cross referenced to verify the identity of a user.-[00105].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automated BMI calculation system of Ross the ability to use a capture device to authenticate a user by taking an image of documentation of a user such as a driver’s license or passport to be cross referenced to verify the identity of a user as taught by Bartlett since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 has similar limitations found in claim 4 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
10. Claim(s) 5-7, 13-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 9839376) in view of Bipembi in further view of Aggarwal et al.(US 2015/0156419).
Re-claim 5. Aggarwal, not Ross, discloses further comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the computing device to transmit the captured at least one image to the terminal to: evaluate the captured at least one image against one or more predefined quality criteria; and generate and transmit an outcome of the evaluation of the captured at least one image against the one or more predefined quality criteria. (Fig. 1, image analysis module to determine image clarity and image quality-item 112, transmit outcome (image quality feedback item 124), [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method for automated BMI calculation of Ross the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and generate and transmit an outcome as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 6. Ross discloses upon agent request, analytical engine retrieves one or more pictures-col 5 lines 41-45 (requisite number of captured images). Aggarwal, not Ross, disclose wherein the one or more predefined quality criteria includes the captured at least one image meeting a degree of clarity; whether a requisite number of captured images have been received; whether an instructed angle of the captured at least one image was met; whether one or more requested portions of the person was captured in the captured at least one image; or any combination thereof (degree of clarity [0032], camera focus and motion of image [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross to include the ability to evaluate captured image against predefined quality criteria and determine degree of clarity, and camera focus as taught by Aggarwal in order to capture the a consistent image quality.
Re-claim 7. Aggarwal, not Ross, disclose receive one or more notifications indicative of the outcome of the evaluation that the captured at least one image did not meet the one or more predefined quality criteria; and re-capture one or more additional images of the person and the object in accordance with the one or more notifications. (immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method for automated BMI calculation of Ross the ability to provide immediate feedback on quality of image sent to user and system permits recapture of the images not meeting quality criteria as taught by Aggarwal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13-15 have similar limitations found in claims 5-7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 18-19 have similar limitations found in claims 5 and 7 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
11. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 9839376) in view of Bipembi in further view of Zhang et al. (US 200090179990).
Re-claim 8. Zhang, not Ross, discloses encode the at least one image to generate encoded information derived from the at least one image; and store the encoded information derived from the at least one image and not store the at least one image. (An encoder for encoding the captured images to generate encoded information; and a primary memory interface for receiving the encoded information and storing the encoded information, see page 2 col. 2, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ross to include the ability to encode the image to generate encoded information as taught by Zhang in order to store data efficiently.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-9 of the Remarks, Applicants contend that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and under PTO guidance do not fall into one of the groupings of abstract ideas. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Patent Office has issued guidance about this framework. -See MPEP§ 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020), in particular, Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). As indicated in the MPEP § 2106, to decide whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim (1) recites one of the abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (“Prong One”) and (2) fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (“Prong Two”).
Beginning with Prong One, step 2A of the eligibility analysis, we must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. One of the subject matter groupings identified as an abstract idea in the Guidance is “[certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including . . . mitigating risk, insurance); commercial. . . interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; . . . sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including . . . following rules or instructions)].” See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Here, apart from the recited systems, i.e., a computing device and at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal, the claims recites abstract ideas in the category of “methods of organizing human activity.” In the 101 analysis in the rejection above, the Examiner identifies and considers each of the underlying steps for the claims as a basis for describing and explaining the recited abstract idea. For example, the Examiner identifies the underlying steps of claim 1—i.e., the capturing an image, converting the captured image, transmitting the image, receive a risk factor —and explains that they describe the concept of capturing images of a person and analyzing the image to determine a height and weight of the person and determine a risk factor for the person for insurance purposes which is a financial practice (insurance) falling into the certain methods of organizing human activity category of abstract ideas. The Examiner’s approach here is consistent with USPTO guidance.
Applicants contend that the claims do not recite “insurance” and therefore are not an abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive. The Specification is replete with reference to the word “insurance” and explains that the information from captured images are used to “determine one or more policy factors for insurance product or policy such as premium, coverage, term type of policy, or the like.”-see Spec. [0007] The Specification states the following as being the “Technical Field” in [0002], “Various aspects of the disclosure generally relate to systems and methods of receiving and analyzing images of a user to perform various actions relating to insurance policies and applications based on the analysis of the insurance policy data and/or customer data.”
Applicants argue that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea because software is not automatically an abstract idea, even if performance of software task involves underlying mathematical calculation or relationship. As cited in Thales Visionix Inc.. The argument is not convincing because here, the claims use generic computer components implementing the claim steps and functions. The computer components are working in their ordinary capacity and do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the “Technical Field” is recited in the Specification as “Various aspects of the disclosure generally relate to systems and methods of receiving and analyzing images of a user to perform various actions relating to insurance policies and applications based on the analysis of the insurance policy data and/or customer data.” The focus of the invention is on a business process, not an improvement in the technology.
On page 12 of the Remarks, as best understood by the Examiner, the applicant argues, “Mere recitation of a judicial exception does not mean that the claim is ‘directed to’ that judicial exception under Step 2A, prong two. Applicants argue that the claims recite elements or a combination of elements which “integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal. The at least one processor, a communication interface, the memory, and terminal are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
In response to the argument that the claims of the instant invention are
analogous to those in Example 40 in the USPTO Guidance, many of the examples in
the Guidance are hypothetical and are intended to be illustrative of the analysis only.
While some of the fact patterns draw from U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of
appeal for the Federal Circuit decisions, the examples do not carry the weight of the
court decisions and therefore are non-precedential.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds no parallel between Applicants’ claims and the hypothetical, patent-eligible claim described in Example 40 of the Guidance. The example showing the patent eligibility of Example 40, describes that although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limited collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoided excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance resulting in improved network monitoring .
Here, the claims are not directed to monitoring of network traffic data.
Contrary to example 40, the claims of the instant application recite additional elements at a high-level of generality (i.e., at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components –see MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that the claims at issue is a practical application of the judicial exception because the claims are similar to those found in Example 42 of the Guidance, “Methods for Transmission of Notification When Medical Records are Updated.” The argument is not persuasive.
As an initial matter, many of the examples in the Guidance are hypothetical and are intended to be illustrative of the analysis only. While some of the fact patterns draw from U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of appeal for the Federal Circuit decisions, the examples do not carry the weight of the court decisions and therefore are non-precedential. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds no parallel between Applicants’ claims and the hypothetical, patent-eligible claim described in Example 42 on the Guidance.
The example showing the patent eligibility of claim 1 of Ex. 42, (page 18), describes that the claim as a whole integrated the method of organizing human activity into a practical application and recited a specific technical improvement. Here, the claims recite at least one processor, a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal. These elements do not impose a “meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” -see Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
The claim steps performed by the computers are generic computer functions. Using a generic processor and computing device to perform the steps of capturing at least one image, converting the image to an outline, transmitting the converted, captured image to a terminal for determination of height or weight, and receiving, as determined by the terminal, a risk factor associated with the person. All these functions are customary computer activities.- see Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming.”). In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am. Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that under Step 2B of the Guidance, the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The argument is not convincing. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools. The use of generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Applicant contends that the claims affect an improvement in technology and/or technical field of improved systems and methods for determining height and weight of a person from a converted image and determining a risk factor. The argument is not persuasive because the improvement is to a business process, i.e., calculating a risk factor based on the height and weight of a person derived from captured images in order to determine insurance product pricing and selection. The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant further argues that the features reflect an improvement in technology by reducing or eliminating the need for a user to provide a height or weight information and avoiding processing of such information and therefore the claims of the instant invention are similar to the features recited in the claims at issue in Enfish. The argument is not persuasive.
The claims in Enfish were not simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices; mathematical formulas performed on any general purpose computer; or generalized steps performed on a computer using conventional computer activity. The patent claims here are not directed to a specific implementation to a solution to a problem in the software arts of improving the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory through use of a specific data structure. In Enfish, The claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computer could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36.
The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant argues that the USPTO's recent decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567, September 26, 2025 ("Desjardins") clearly highlights that machine learning innovations cannot be simply waived away as simply merely some conventional implementations of generic computer components. Applicants argue that similar to Desjardins, the instant claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
The argument is not persuasive. In Desjardins, the claimed process was directed to “a computer-implemented method of training a machine learning model” (emphasis added). The claims, and as supported by the Specification, recited steps specifically directed to training the machine learning models such as including parameters and that the ML model was trained on a first ML tasks using first training data to determine first values of a plurality of parameters and the method comprised: determining for each parameter, respective measure of an importance of the parameter to the first ML task and the claim goes on to specifically and in detail describe how the determining step was performed, and the steps involved in the training of the model to perform ML tasks. Notably, the recited process trained the machine learning model in a particular way using particular information and techniques—an improvement resulting in training the same ML model on multiple tasks. The specification recited that the improvement is to effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks.”-Spec.§ 21, and the claimed improvement allows for once the model has been trained, the model can be used for each of the multiple tasks with an acceptable level of performance while using less storage capacity and having reduced system complexity.
Unlike in Desjardins, the recited, at least one processor, a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause a computing device to perform the claimed functions, and a terminal, do not amount to improvements in training a machine learning model. The Desjardins court indicated that the claimed invention resulted in an improvement to how the machine learning model itself is trained and operates. In contrast, Applicants' claims address a determination of a risk factor based on the height or weight of a captured image of a person. The claims in Desjardins were directed to an improvement in training and operating a machine learning model, rather than applying a computer to perform generic data manipulation steps, as in the claims of the instant application.
The claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
On page 18 of the Remarks, Applicants argue that none of the references, alone or in combination, teach “receive, responsive to the transmitting and as determined by the terminal, a risk factor corresponding to a rating of risk associated with the person based, at least in part, on the height or the weight of the person determined from the at least one image.” The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s attention is directed to the Applicant’s Specification, ¶[0039], which states, “Accordingly, an insurance policy or product factor, such as an insurance rate or premium, coverage, term, or the like, for that user may be determined based on the low rating for body mass index as a risk factor.”
It is noted that the Specification recites, that a low rating associated with a BMI calculation correlates to a “risk factor.” In fact, the Specification is devoid of any other description of the amended, “a risk factor corresponding to a rating or risk.” As best understood by the Examiner and given the BRI interpretation of the claim in view of the Specification, the Applicant is associating a risk factor to a low rating for BMI.
Ross discloses that the system receives height and weight information as well as pictures of the client and performs automated body mass index calculations based on pictures-col. 9 lines 16-27.
Ross discloses, “Body mass index (BMI) is a wide known indicator employed in health insurance. Health insurance companies look at body mass index for insurance rating purposes for the reason that BMI is a significant factor correlated with health risk conditions, such as obesity and heart disease.”-see Background, col. 1 lines 23-31; and col. 10 line 65 to col. 11 line 7. [a risk factor corresponding to a rating of risk].
Ross further discloses risk factor corresponding to the rating of risk in col. 11 lines 46-60 –“Next, analytical engine employs regression algorithms for calculating BMI of potential client, which is 26 and corresponds to an obese person (i.e., high rating of BMI as a risk factor)….BMI of 19 corresponds with a normal weight (i.e., low rating of BMI as a risk factor as defined by applicant in Spec. [0039])) .
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
