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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-8, 11-18, and 21-28 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 05-December-2024. Domestic Benefit/National Stage priority has been claimed for application 63/606,390 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 05-December-2023, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23-October-2025, 30-December-2025, 27-April-2026, and 30-April-2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8,11-18 and 21-28 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. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1, 11, and 21, the claims recite “a … method, executed [by an entity], comprising:
receiving an initial claim for a vehicle from a submitter, wherein the initial claim is destined for a claim service [provider];
processing the initial claim to confirm the completeness and accuracy of the same, thus defining a vetted claim submission, wherein processing the initial claim to confirm the completeness and accuracy of the same includes:
identifying one or more defects within the initial claim using a [model/equation] that is [used] to identify the one or more defects within the initial claim by comparing the initial claim to one or more rejection patterns, thus defining identified defects, wherein the [model/equation] is [used] by analyzing historical data associated with initial claims with the [model/equation] and identifying the one or more rejection patterns for the initial claims from the historical data, wherein the one or more rejection patterns include one or more of: examples of claims submitted without photographic support, examples of claims submitted with incorrect information, and examples of claims with missing information;
generating an … notification to the submitter concerning the one or more identified defects;
enabling the submitter to address the identified defects, thus defining a vetted claim submission, wherein enabling the submitter to address the identified defects includes:
generating a plurality of available options to address the identified defects using the [model/equation];
enabling the submitter to choose between the plurality of available choices; and
processing a selection provided by the submitter to address the identified defects by replacing the identified defects with the selection provided by the submitter; and
submitting the vetted claim to the claim service [provider].”
The limitation of the claims recited above, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. computer, processor, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, specifically under fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. The method recited above is a process associated with insurance or warranty, which involves the steps to receive, analyze, process, and submit a claim. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A):
“The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks … Another example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bancorp Services., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The fundamental economic practice at issue in Bancorp pertained to insurance. The patentee in Bancorp claimed methods and systems for managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, which comprised steps including generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities, calculating surrender value protected investment credits for the life insurance policy; determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities for the current day; and calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day. 687 F.3d at 1270-71, 103 USPQ2d at 1427. The court described the claims as an "attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [managing a stable value protected life insurance policy] and then instruct the use of well-known [calculations] to help establish some of the inputs into the equation." 687 F.3d at 1278, 103 USPQ2d at 1433 (alterations in original) (citing Bilski)”
See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(II)(B):
“Other examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts include:
i. managing a stable value protected life insurance policy via performing calculations, Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012); and
ii. processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy (i.e., an agreement in the form of a contract), Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1338-39, 108 USPQ2d 1173, 1175-76 (Fed. Cir. 2013).”
The goal of the invention is to increase efficiency for the claim submission and reimbursement process, as disclosed by Specification:
[002] “This disclosure relates to claim submissions and, more particularly, to systems and methods for monitoring the processing of such claim submissions”
[0039] “the claim submission and reimbursement process may be made more efficient”
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “computing device”, “processor”, computer program product”, “computer readable medium”, “computing system”, and “memory” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These additional elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, but are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities, such as: receive data, process data, and submit data, as shown in Figure 1 and as disclosed by Specification:
[00154] “Accordingly, the present disclosure may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects”
[00155] “Any suitable computer usable or computer readable medium may be utilized”
[00157] “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer”
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer system, or merely using the computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, process, analyze, and transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims also recite an additional element “trained artificial intelligence (AI) system that is trained to identify the one or more defects … wherein the Al system is trained by analyzing historical data associated with initial claims with the Al system and identifying the one or more rejection patterns for the initial claims from the historical data ... ”. This additional element of the “AI system” is recited at a mere “apply it” level, wherein the AI system is merely used as a “black-box” application to provide an output (i.e. use the trained AI system to identify defects). The steps of AI system being trained with historical data to identify patterns is recited at a mere “apply it” level. There is no technical details or steps on how the AI system is being implemented, controlled, changed, manipulated, or altered to improve its system or any of its underlying components. As similarly discussed above, mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The claims 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, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer system, or merely using the computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2, 12, and 22 recite “wherein the initial claim concerns one or more of: a covered maintenance claim for the vehicle; an over-the-counter parts claim for the vehicle; a transportation damage claim for the vehicle; a pre-delivery inspection claim for the vehicle; a warranty claim for the vehicle; and a recall for the vehicle.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. initial claim concern), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 13, and 23 recite “wherein the submitter includes one or more of: an authorized service center associated with the vehicle; a dealership associated with the vehicle; a repair shop servicing the vehicle; and a company associated with the vehicle.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. submitter), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 14, and 24 recite “wherein the vehicle is one of: a private vehicle; a commercial vehicle; a watersport vehicle; a heavy equipment vehicle; an aircraft; and a fleet vehicle.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. vehicle), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 15, and 25 recite “wherein the fleet vehicle includes one or more of: a corporate vehicle; a rideshare vehicle; and a rental vehicle.” The claims provide further details regarding the data (e.g. fleet vehicle), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 16, and 26 recite “wherein the claim service processor is an original equipment manufacturer of the vehicle.” The claims provide further details regarding the processor, but the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 7, 17, and 27 recite “wherein the claim service processor is a third-party warranty provider for the vehicle.” The claims provide further details regarding the processor, but the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 8, 18, and 28 recite “wherein processing the initial claim to confirm the completeness and accuracy of the same, thus defining a vetted claim includes: confirming that the initial claim is free of any defects, thus defining the vetted claim submission.” The claims provide further steps regarding the confirming process, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-8, 12-18, and 22-28, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claims, each claim recites using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer system, or merely using the computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-8,11-18 and 21-28 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 11-15, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. (US 20200286616 A1), in view of Noble et al. (US 20070038506 A1), and in view of Mossoba et al. (US 20230153650 A1).
As per Claims 1, 11, and 21, Dunn discloses a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
receiving an initial claim … from a submitter, wherein the initial claim is destined for a claim service processor ([0015] “Additionally the system may be configured for generating, by a claims generating engine of the server system, a claims packet including one or more claims for submittal to the third-party obligator … Once generated, the claims packet may then be submitted to the third-party obligator, by the system server”);
processing the initial claim to confirm the completeness and accuracy of the same, thus defining a vetted claim submission ([0059] “More particularly, a client computing device and/or server of the system may be provided wherein the computing device may be configured for determining if there is a deficiency of information in the patient data and/or claims packet, such as one or more pieces of missing or inaccurate information of the claim submittal packet. As indicated, when a deficiency is determined, the computing device may then perform an identification operation so as to identify and locate the missing or inaccurate information”), wherein processing the initial claim to confirm the completeness and accuracy of the same includes:
identifying one or more defects within the initial claim using a trained artificial intelligence (AI) system that is trained to identify the one or more defects within the initial claim by comparing the initial claim to one or more rejection patterns, thus defining identified defects, wherein the Al system is trained by analyzing historical data associated with initial claims with the Al system and identifying the one or more rejection patterns for the initial claims from the historical data ([0221] “In the deep learning protocol, salient features are extracted and considered in comparison with similar features stored in a database of previously extracted features. For example, each feature may represent a characteristic that may be categorized into one or more categories, classes, or labels, which labels may be used to recognize patterns. The machine can therefore be trained to recognize the reoccurrence of those patterns in other representations” and see also [0234] “Specifically, as indicted above, the data entered into the system may be used to train the system, and once trained the system may be employed to make one or more correlations or predictions, therewith, such as in response to a query, such as with respect to whether a claim for a treatment will be reimbursed”), wherein the one or more rejection patterns include one or more of: examples of claims submitted without photographic support, examples of claims submitted with incorrect information, and examples of claims with missing information ([0081] “More particularly, where a document includes a missing data feature, the system, e.g., a suitably configured Artificial Intelligence (AI) module thereof, may be configured for searching a database of the system for previous data entries that match the data field requirement, in which case the system may auto populate the missing data field”);
generating an electronic notification to the submitter concerning the one or more identified defects ([0081] “However, if the missing data cannot be identified as being present within the system, then the system may flag the data requirement, and send out an alarm and/or message, such as an email message, requesting the entry of the required data and/or fields”);
enabling the submitter to address the identified defects, thus defining a vetted claim submission ([0110] “However, in certain instances, the missing data goes beyond the basic requirements, such as missing time entry or signature, the system may identify the missing data, and may then send a query requesting that the missing data be entered”), wherein enabling the submitter to address the identified defects includes:
…
processing a selection provided by the submitter to address the identified defects by replacing the identified defects with the selection provided by the submitter ([0114] “Once the missing information has been acquired and entered, and the claim validated …”); and
submitting the vetted claim to the claim service processor ([0114] “Once the missing information has been acquired and entered, and the claim validated, an invoice may be generated and may then be delivered to the insurance company for payment”).
One of ordinary skill in the art at would have found it obvious to update the system of Dunn using “receiving an initial claim for a vehicle from a submitter”, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as receiving a claim in the field of insurance with the steps of data analysis of the submitted claim. This would be accomplished with no unpredictable results. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, Noble teaches:
receiving an initial claim for a vehicle from a submitter, wherein the initial claim is destined for a claim service processor ([0098] “TEX can also provide the dealer with the capability of submitting a claim if a vehicle is damaged in-transit” or see also [0162] “On that page, clicking on the Submit a Claim button displays the Dealer Submit Claim page. This page is similar to the Delivery Inspection Report except, instead of being read-only, the dealer is permitted to enter its own inspection information to create a Claim for monetary damages from the Transporter”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize receiving an initial claim for a vehicle as in Noble in the system executing the method of Dunn with the motivation of offering to provide improvement in organization and enhancement of the efficiency in movement of vehicles as taught by Noble over that of Dunn.
Although Dunn teaches of identifying missing data from the submitted claim using the AI module, wherein an alert is transmitted to request manual input of the missing information as disclosed above, the prior art does not seem to explicitly disclose of generating a plurality of available options to address the missing information and enabling the submitter to choose an option. However, Mossoba discloses:
… wherein enabling the submitter to address the identified defects includes (See Figure 7):
generating a plurality of available options to address the identified defects using the trained AI system (See Figure 7 – step 730, as disclosed [0061] “At reference numeral 730, a machine learning model is invoked to predict a user preference. More particularly, the user preference relates to the multiple fill options the user is likely to prefer. The model can be trained based on historical interaction with forms and any available context information (e.g., user schedule, time of year, type of product . . . )” with respect to the AI system, see [0044] “Various portions of the disclosed systems above and methods below can include or employ artificial intelligence, machine learning, or knowledge or rule-based components, sub-components, processes, means, methodologies, or mechanisms (e.g., support vector machines, neural networks, expert systems, Bayesian belief networks, fuzzy logic, data fusion engines, classifiers, . . . ). Such components, among others, can automate certain mechanisms or processes performed thereby, making portions of the systems and methods more adaptive as well as efficient and intelligent”);
enabling the submitter to choose between the plurality of available choices ([0017] “A user alert can also be triggered when the system needs assistance completing a field or conveying completion confidence scores. Furthermore, a scroll-up can be utilized to revoke consent and disagree with an automatically completed field. In response, the field can be completed with a second option if multiple options exist. In this way, a user can cycle through potential completion options”); and
processing a selection provided by the submitter to address the identified defects by replacing the identified defects with the selection provided by the submitter (See Figure 7 – step 760, as disclosed [0064] “At reference numeral 760, a determination is made as to whether or not the user consented or agreed with the fill option or initiated actions to change the fill option selected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize generating options and allowing the user to select the options to fill in the missing data as in Mossoba in the system executing the method of Dunn with the motivation of offering to improve user experience and [0064] allowing the AI system to learn and improve with experience as taught by Mossoba over that of Dunn.
As per claims 2, 12, and 22, Dunn may not explicitly disclose, but Noble teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21, wherein the initial claim concerns one or more of:
a covered maintenance claim for the vehicle; an over-the-counter parts claim for the vehicle; a transportation damage claim for the vehicle; a pre-delivery inspection claim for the vehicle; a warranty claim for the vehicle; and a recall for the vehicle ([0098] “TEX can also provide the dealer with the capability of submitting a claim if a vehicle is damaged in-transit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize transportation damage claim for the vehicle as in Noble in the system executing the method of Dunn with the motivation of offering to provide improvement in organization and enhancement of the efficiency in movement of vehicles as taught by Noble over that of Dunn.
As per claims 3, 13, and 23, Dunn may not explicitly disclose, but Noble teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21, wherein the submitter includes one or more of:
an authorized service center associated with the vehicle; a dealership associated with the vehicle; a repair shop servicing the vehicle; and a company associated with the vehicle ([0098] “TEX can also provide the dealer with the capability of submitting a claim if a vehicle is damaged in-transit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize dealership submitting the claim associated with the vehicle as in Noble in the system executing the method of Dunn with the motivation of offering to provide improvement in organization and enhancement of the efficiency in movement of vehicles as taught by Noble over that of Dunn.
As per claims 4, 14, and 24, Dunn may not explicitly disclose, but Noble teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21, wherein the vehicle is one of:
a private vehicle; a commercial vehicle; a watersport vehicle; a heavy equipment vehicle; an aircraft; and a fleet vehicle ([0133] “New Vehicle information entry will be data driven, based upon an associated database of vehicle year/make/model/trim information … The Vin-8 will permit data entry for the first eight characters of the vehicle's VIN number. The condition selector will permit selection from amongst a set of relevant condition types, including running, no brakes, no steering, etc. Size selection will indicate whether the vehicle is compact, mid-size, SUV, etc. and, if known from the entered year/make/model information, will be automatically set to an initial value. Finally, the dealer will indicate whether or not the vehicle is a convertible”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize categorizing the vehicle for the claim as in Noble in the system executing the method of Dunn with the motivation of offering to provide improvement in organization and enhancement of the efficiency in movement of vehicles as taught by Noble over that of Dunn.
As per claims 5, 15, and 25, Dunn may not explicitly disclose, but Noble teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, the computer program product of claim 14, and the computing system of claim 24, wherein the fleet vehicle includes one or more of:
a corporate vehicle; a rideshare vehicle; and a rental vehicle ([0133] “New Vehicle information entry will be data driven, based upon an associated database of vehicle year/make/model/trim information … The Vin-8 will permit data entry for the first eight characters of the vehicle's VIN number. The condition selector will permit selection from amongst a set of relevant condition types, including running, no brakes, no steering, etc. Size selection will indicate whether the vehicle is compact, mid-size, SUV, etc. and, if known from the entered year/make/model information, will be automatically set to an initial value. Finally, the dealer will indicate whether or not the vehicle is a convertible”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize categorizing the fleet vehicle for the claim as in Noble in the system executing the method of Dunn with the motivation of offering to provide improvement in organization and enhancement of the efficiency in movement of vehicles as taught by Noble over that of Dunn.
Claims 6-7, 16-17, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn, in view of Noble, in view of Mossoba, and in view of Chan et al. (US 20070061774 A1).
As per claims 6, 16, and 26, Dunn may not explicitly disclose, but Chan teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21, wherein the claim service processor is an original equipment manufacturer of the vehicle ([0087] “The view/manage warranty information module 406 may also allow the customer to submit a warranty claim to the OEM”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize submitting a claim to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) as in Chan in the system executing the method of Dunn with the motivation of offering to improve efficiency and user satisfaction by providing various options as taught by Chan over that of Dunn.
As per claims 7, 17, and 27, Dunn may not explicitly disclose, but Chan teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21, wherein the claim service processor is a third-party warranty provider for the vehicle ([0087] “The view/manage warranty information module 406 may also allow the customer to submit a warranty claim to … a general contractor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize submitting a claim to a third-party warranty provider as in Chan in the system executing the method of Dunn with the motivation of offering to improve efficiency and user satisfaction by providing various options as taught by Chan over that of Dunn.
Claims 8, 18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn, in view of Noble, in view of Mossoba, and in view of Trummer (US 20210200762 A1).
As per claims 8, 18, and 28, Dunn may not explicitly disclose, but Trummer teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21, wherein processing the initial claim to confirm the completeness and accuracy of the same, thus defining a vetted claim includes:
confirming that the initial claim is free of any defects, thus defining the vetted claim submission ([0064] “Internally, the system in some embodiments executes the following, simplified process to verify a claim. First, it tries to translate the natural language claim into at least one SQL query reflecting its semantics. Second, it executes the corresponding query or queries on the relational database. More particularly, in some embodiments, multiple possible translations for the same claim result in multiple candidate queries that are executed on the relational database, since the system is unsure as to which translation is the correct one. Third, it compares each query result against the value claimed in text. If the query result rounds to the text value then the claim has been verified”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize claim verification system as in Trummer in the system executing the method of Dunn with the motivation of offering for [0004] “significantly improved performance in automated or semi-automated fact checking, and in numerous other text summary verification contexts, relative to conventional approaches” as taught by Trummer over that of Dunn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10 to 11, filed 09-March-2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the limitation with respect to the AI system being trained with historical data to identify patterns is recited at a mere “apply it” level, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application, and not “significantly more”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11 to 15, with 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As disclosed above under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the referenced prior art Dunn teaches of enabling the submitter to address the identified defects ([0110] discloses of allowing the user to enter the missing data of the claim), processing the selection to address the identified defect and replace it ([0114] discloses of entering the missing information and the claim being validated), and submitting the claim ([0114] discloses of generating the invoice and delivering it to the insurance company).
Although Dunn teaches of identifying missing data from the submitted claim using the AI module, wherein an alert is transmitted to request manual input of the missing information as disclosed above, the prior art does not seem to explicitly disclose of generating a plurality of available options to address the missing information and enabling the submitter to choose an option. Mossoba teaches of generating available options to address the identified defects ([0061] discloses of the machine learning model providing multiple fill options for the missing information), enabling the user to choose between the options ([0017] discloses of options to complete the empty field), and replacing the missing information with the selection ([0064] discloses of the user’s consent to fill the option).
Although the prior art reference Mossoba alone may not teach the whole claim limitations, the combination of the referenced prior arts Dunn in view of Mossoba would teach at least the disclosed claim limitations, as discussed above. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zahora et al. (US 20220309592 A1) discloses [0135] “The patterns, in some examples, may include … patterns of payer rejections … In some embodiments, the payment trends analysis engine 239 applies machine learning analysis, cluster analysis, and/or statistical data analysis to the remittance data 268 to identify data patterns within the accessed records. For example, the payment trends analysis engine 239 may include different machine learning classifiers trained to identify patterns related to the various sets and subsets of payment types. The machine learning classifiers, for example, may be trained using de-identified data collected over a period of time (e.g., at least 3 months, from 3 to 6 months, up to 1 year, 2 years, etc.)”;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights