CTFR 18/957,996 CTFR 87445 DETAILED ACTION This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/25/2024 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 03/16/2026. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is withdrawn in view of the Amendment & Remark filed on 03/16/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to 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 a process, an apparatus 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 computer-implemented method of determining an injury severity based on computing device -generated accident data , the computer-implemented method comprising: determining , by a computing device, accident data determined before, during, and after an accident involving a first vehicle and a second vehicle, the accident data comprising an image captured by a camera configured at one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle and accelerometer data captured at the first vehicle; determining, by the computing device and based at least in part on the image and the accelerometer data, a severity of damage to the first vehicle; and determining, by the computing device and based at least in part on the severity of damage to the first vehicle, a severity of injury to one or more occupants of the first vehicle. Claim 2 recites: determining, based at least in part on the accident data, one or more of a speed of the first vehicle or a change in speed of the first vehicle; and determining the severity of damage to the first vehicle further based at least in part on one or more of the speed of the first vehicle or the change in speed of the first vehicle. Claim 3 recites: wherein the accident data comprises vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication data associated with the one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle. Claim 4 recites: wherein the accident data comprises additional data received from a remote system . Claim 5 recites: wherein the additional data comprises one or more of traffic condition data, weather condition data, road condition data, or construction condition data. Claim 6 recites: wherein the accident data comprises one or more of vehicle use data associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, speed data associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, acceleration data associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, communications data associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, error data associated with one or more features of one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, or failure data associated with one or more features one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle. Claim 7 recites: further comprising transmitting a request for emergency services based at least in part on the severity of damage to the first vehicle Claim 8 recites: A computing system for determining an injury data based on computing device- generated accident data , the computing system comprising: one or more processors; a camera configured at a first vehicle ; and one or more non-transitory memories configured at the vehicle, coupled to the one or more processors, and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: determining accident data based at least in part on accident data determined during an accident involving the first vehicle and a second vehicle in an environment in which the first vehicle was operating, the accident data comprising an image captured by the camera and accelerometer data captured at the first vehicle; determining, based at least in part on the image and the accelerometer data, a severity of damage to the first vehicle; and determining, based at least in part on the severity of damage to the vehicle, a severity of injury to one or more occupants of the first vehicle. Claim 9 recites: wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a request for one or more of a towing service or repair based at least in part on the severity of damage to the first vehicle. Claim 10 recites: wherein the accident data comprises data received from a wireless communications device external to the first vehicle. Claim 11 recites: wherein the accident data comprises roadside accident data generated by roadside equipment proximate to a location of the accident. Claim 12 recites: wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a request for emergency services based at least in part on the severity of injury Claim 13 recites: wherein the operations further comprise generating a repair estimate based at least in part on the severity of damage to the first vehicle. Claim 14 recites: wherein the accident data comprises data generated based at least in part on sensor data received from one or more sensors configured at the first vehicle or the second vehicle. Claim 15 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions for determining an injury severity based on computing device- generated accident data that , when executed by at least one processor of a computing system configured at a first vehicle , cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: determining accident data associated an accident involving a first vehicle and a second vehicle, the accident data comprising an image captured by a camera configured at one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle and accelerometer data captured at the first vehicle; determining based at least in part on the image and the accelerometer data, a severity of damage to the first vehicle; and determining based at least in part on the severity of damage to the first vehicle, a severity of injury to one or more occupants of the first vehicle. Claim 16 recites: wherein the accident data comprises data generated at the computing system based at least in part on sensor data received from one or more sensors configured at the first vehicle. Claim 17 recites: wherein the accident data comprises data received at the computing system from a remote system and generated at the remote system based at least in part on sensor data received from one or more sensors configured at one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle . Claim 18 recites: wherein the accident data comprises data received from a mobile communications device associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle. Claim 19 recites: determining, based at least in part on the accident data, one or more of a speed of the second vehicle or a change in speed of the second vehicle; and determining the severity of damage to the first vehicle further based at least in part on one or more of the speed of the second vehicle or the change in speed of the second vehicle. Claim 20 recites: wherein the accident data comprises first data received from a remote system and generated based at least in part on second data generated at one or more vehicles distinct from the first vehicle. Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers analyzing accident data in insurance practice. Analyzing accident data in insurance practice manages the contractual relationship of the insurance policy and 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 “computer” or “one or more processors” 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 “ determining , by a computing device, accident data determined before, during, and after an accident involving a first vehicle and a second vehicle, the accident data comprising an image captured by a camera configured at one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle and accelerometer data captured at the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data including captured image and accelerometer data; the limitation “ determining, by the computing device and based at least in part on the image and the accelerometer data, a severity of damage to the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the severity of the vehicles during the accident; the limitation “ determining, by the computing device and based at least in part on the severity of damage to the first vehicle, a severity of injury to one or more occupants of the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the severity of occupant injury based on the severity damage of the first vehicle based at least in part on the orientation; the limitation “ determining, based at least in part on the accident data, one or more of a speed of the first vehicle or a change in speed of the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the one or more of a speed or a change in speed of the first vehicle; the limitation “ determining the severity of damage to the first vehicle further based at least in part on one or more of the speed of the first vehicle or the change in speed of the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the severity of damage of the first vehicle based at least in part on the speed or change in speed; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication data associated with the second vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on v2v communication data; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises additional data received from a remote system” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on additional data received from a remote system; the limitation “ wherein the additional data comprises one or more of traffic condition data, weather condition data, road condition data, or construction condition data ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on additional data listed; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises one or more of vehicle use data associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, speed data associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, acceleration data associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, communications data associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, error data associated with one or more features of one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle, or failure data associated with one or more features one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on additional data listed; the limitation “ transmitting a request for emergency services based at least in part on the severity of damage to the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of requesting emergency services based at least in part on the severity of damage; the limitation “ determining accident data based at least in part on accident data determined during an accident involving the first vehicle and a second vehicle in an environment in which the first vehicle was operating, the accident data comprising an image captured by the camera and accelerometer data captured at the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data including captured image and accelerometer data; the limitation “ determining, based at least in part on the image and the accelerometer data, a severity of damage to the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the severity of damage of the first vehicle; the limitation “ determining, based at least in part on the severity of damage to the vehicle, a severity of injury to one or more occupants of the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the occupants injury severity based on the severity of damage of the first vehicle; the limitation “ wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a request for one or more of a towing service or repair based at least in part on the severity of damage to the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of requesting one or more of towing service or repair; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises data received from a wireless communications device external to the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on data received from wireless communication device external to the vehicle; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises roadside accident data generated by roadside equipment proximate to a location of the accident ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on roadside telematic data generated by roadside equipment; the limitation “ wherein the operations further comprise generating a repair estimate based at least in part on the severity of damage to the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating a repair estimate based at least part on the severity of damage to the vehicle; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises data generated based at least in part on sensor data received from one or more sensors configured at the first vehicle or the second vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on received sensor data; the limitation “ determining accident data associated an accident involving a first vehicle and a second vehicle, the accident data comprising an image captured by a camera configured at one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle and accelerometer data captured at the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data including captured image and accelerometer data; the limitation “ determining based at least in part on the image and the accelerometer data, a severity of damage to the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the severity of damage to the first vehicle; the limitation “ determining, based at least in part on the orientation, a severity of damage to the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the severity of occupant injury based on the severity of damage to the first vehicle; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises data generated at the computing system based at least in part on sensor data received from one or more sensors configured at one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on received sensor data; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises data received at the computing system from a remote system and generated at the remote system based at least in part on sensor data received from one or more sensors configured at one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on data received from a remote system generated based at least in part of sensor data; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises data received from a mobile communications device associated with one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on data received from a mobile communication device associated with the second vehicle; the limitation “ determining, based at least in part on the accident data, one or more of a speed of the second vehicle or a change in speed of the second vehicle; and determining the severity of damage to the first vehicle further based at least in part on one or more of the speed of the second vehicle or the change in speed of the second vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining a speed or a change of speed of the second vehicle and determining the severity of damage of first vehicle based on speed or change of speed of the second vehicle; the limitation “ wherein the accident data comprises first data received from a remote system and generated based at least in part on second data generated at one or more vehicles distinct from the first vehicle ” encompasses no more than generically invoking one or more computer processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining accident data based at least in part on data received from a remote system generated based at least in part of data generated at one or more other vehicles. Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements 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 “vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication”, “from a wireless communications device”, “generated by roadside equipment”, “a camera configured at a first vehicle” “from one or more sensors configured at the first vehicle”, “from a mobile communications device” are nominally recited as the sources of the telematic data but not actively recited as part of the invention. 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 analyze accident data amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the rejection, analyzing accident data (damage or injury severity) in insurance practice manages the contractual relationship of the insurance policy and is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the argument is not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims “recite an improvement to injury severity determination technologies and enhancements of the efficiency”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that a Judicial Exception such as accident data analysis (injury severity determination) does not become a technology by appending the word technology to it, similar to how Alice Corp. does not improve “settlement risk mitigation technology”. Determining injury severity based on captured image and accelerometer data collected is nonetheless an analysis of accident data in an insurance context. Thus, the claims do not integrate the Judicial Exception into practical application. Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims “address a technical problem rooted in a difficulty of automatically and efficiency determining the severity of injury to an occupant of a vehicle involved in at the time of an accident, so that for example, responsive actions can be quickly taken”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner noted that the independent claims consist only of determining steps and no responsive actions is claimed with temporal limitation. Thus, the applicant’s argument is not substantiated by the claims. Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims recite “detailed computer-implemented operations”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Particularly in claims 7, 9, 12 and 13, the limitations “transmitting a request for emergency services based on the determined vehicle damage severity, transmitting a request for a towing service or a repair service based on the determined vehicle damage severity, and generating repair estimate data based on the determined vehicle damage severity” are steps of the Judicial Exception such as requesting emergency service, requesting towing service, generating repair estimate non-meaningfully applied to a computer environment. Thus, the argument is not persuasive. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 2 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 3 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 4 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 5 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 6 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 7 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 8 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 9 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 10 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 11 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 12 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 13 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 14 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 15 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 16 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 17 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/957,996 Page 18 Art Unit: 3693
Prosecution Insights