DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1 and 3-30 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 RCE submission filed on 10/3/25 has been entered.
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 and 3-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to a method (i.e., a process), claim 11 is to a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture or machine), and claim 21 is to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1, 11, and 21 is (claim 1 being representative):
receiving an initial claim for a vehicle from a submitter, wherein the initial claim is destined for a claim service processor and includes one or more of:
a covered maintenance claim for the vehicle,
an over-the-counter parts claim for the vehicle,
a pre-delivery inspection claim for the vehicle,
a warranty claim for the vehicle, and
a recall for the vehicle;
processing the initial claim to determine if the initial claim can be processed by an existing bot included within a claim processing bot repository, wherein the claim processing bot repository includes a plurality of existing bots that are generated for automatically processing claims associated with particular subsets of vehicles and particular subsets of claim processing functionalities, wherein the plurality of existing bots are generated by processing a plurality of earlier-received claims associated with a respective subset of vehicles and a respective subset of claim processing functionalities using a machine learning model;
determining that the initial claim can be processed by an existing bot included within the claim processing bot repository;
in response to determining that the initial claim can be processed by any of the existing bots, processing the initial claim, wherein processing the initial claim includes:
determining that the initial claim includes one or more defects;
generating a corrected claim by automatically correcting the one or more defects, wherein analyzes the initial claim to correct the one or more defects by detecting a correct submission pattern from past submissions and rejection patterns associated with the initial claim and modifying the initial claim with the correct submission pattern; and
submitting the corrected claim to the claim service processor.
The steps above are those that an administrator could perform, in the context of processing insurance claims. Receiving claim information and evaluating whether or not further processing and/or corrections are required are steps that could be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper. This is further described in para. [003] and [004] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the steps above describe a party processing and correcting an insurance-related claim submitted by another party, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity. This is further described in para. [003] and [004] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Examiner notes that the additional details describing the claim processing bot repository and plurality of existing bots are part of the abstract idea. In this instance, they merely elaborate on the solution determined by the administrator after processing the initial claim.)
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite the following additional elements: using a specific bot; the specific bot.
Claim 1 also recites the following additional elements: computer-implemented; computing device.
Claim 11 also recites the following additional elements: computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon; processor.
Claim 21 also recites the following additional elements: computing system; processor; memory.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in para. [0021] to [0031] of applicant’s specification as filed.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claims 3-7, 12-17, and 22-27 add additional information and/or description, thereby narrowing the abstract idea. There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This narrowed abstract idea is also not patent eligible.
Claims 8, 18, and 28 narrow the abstract idea with additional steps (determining that the initial claim cannot be processed by an existing bot… in response to determining the initial claim cannot be processed by any of the existing bots, generating… for processing the initial claim; and processing the initial claim), in addition to restating previously identified additional elements (claim processing bot repository) and introducing new additional elements (bespoke bot; using the bespoke bot). Similar to above, these generically recited computing elements and/or processes are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), whether viewed alone or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into practical application and are not significantly more.
Claims 9, 19, and 29 narrow the abstract idea with additional steps (identify one or more additional vehicles for which claims may be processed by the bespoke bot, thus defining a curated bot), in addition to restating previously identified additional elements (processing the bespoke bot; claim processing bot repository) and introducing new additional elements (adding the curated bot). Similar to above, these generically recited computing elements and/or processes are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), whether viewed alone or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into practical application and are not significantly more.
Claims 10, 20, and 30 introduce new additional elements (wherein generating a bespoke bot for processing the initial claim includes: processing the initial claim for the vehicle from the submitter using machine learning / artificial intelligence to generate the bespoke bot for processing the initial claim). Similar to above, these generically recited computing elements and/or processes are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), whether viewed alone or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into practical application and are not significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-30 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/25 have been fully considered. The headings below correspond to those used by applicant.
Rejections Under 35 USC § 101
Applicant offers, after restating the present amendments:
Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 and 3-30 are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite a practical application of the alleged abstract idea.
Without conceding whether or not the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant respectfully submits that the features "processing the initial claim to determine if the initial claim can be processed by an existing bot included within a claim processing bot repository, wherein the claim processing bot repository includes a plurality of existing bots that are generated for automatically processing claims associated with particular subsets of vehicles and particular subsets of claim processing functionalities, wherein the plurality of existing bots are generated by processing a plurality of earlier-received claims associated with a respective subset of vehicles and a respective subset of claim processing functionalities using a machine learning model" and " processing the initial claim using a specific bot included within the claim processing bot repository, wherein processing the initial claim with the specific bot includes: determining that the initial claim includes one or more defects; generating a corrected claim by automatically correcting the one or more defects using the specific bot, wherein the specific bot analyzes the initial claim to correct the one or more defects by detecting a correct submission pattern from past submissions and rejection patterns associated with the initial claim and modifying the initial claim with the correct submission pattern; and submitting the corrected claim to the claim service processor" provide a practical application of the alleged abstract idea(s) under Step 2A and are not "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the art and, as such, recite an inventive concept under Step 2B. For example, as amended, independent claims 1, 11, and 21 describe how a specific bot is generated for automatically processing claims associated with particular subsets of vehicles and particular subsets of claim processing functionalities by processing a plurality of earlier-received claims associated with a respective subset of vehicles and a respective subset of claim processing functionalities using a machine learning model. The specific bot is not a generic computing device doing generic computing functions but is specially trained by a machine learning model to automatically correct defects by modifying the initial claim with a correct submission pattern and submits the corrected claim to a claim service processor.
As these features allow for automatic claim correction using a specific bot generated using a machine learning model and earlier-received claims associated with a respective subset of vehicles and a respective subset of claim processing functionalities.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 11, 21 recite at least an inventive concept. As such, Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 1 and 3- 30 are directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1 and 3-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1 and 3-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
With respect to the Abstract Idea rejection, examiner remains unpersuaded. Applicant has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, when offering comments such as:
[…] Applicant respectfully submits that the features "processing the initial claim to determine if the initial claim can be processed by an existing bot included within a claim processing bot repository, wherein the claim processing bot repository includes a plurality of existing bots that are generated for automatically processing claims associated with particular subsets of vehicles and particular subsets of claim processing functionalities, wherein the plurality of existing bots are generated by processing a plurality of earlier-received claims associated with a respective subset of vehicles and a respective subset of claim processing functionalities using a machine learning model" and "processing the initial claim using a specific bot included within the claim processing bot repository, wherein processing the initial claim with the specific bot includes: determining that the initial claim includes one or more defects; generating a corrected claim by automatically correcting the one or more defects using the specific bot, wherein the specific bot analyzes the initial claim to correct the one or more defects by detecting a correct submission pattern from past submissions and rejection patterns associated with the initial claim and modifying the initial claim with the correct submission pattern; and submitting the corrected claim to the claim service processor" provide a practical application of the alleged abstract idea(s) under Step 2A and are not "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the art and, as such, recite an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Here, examiner’s position is that the steps of the abstract idea, including – processing the initial claim to determine if the initial claim can be processed by an existing bot included within a claim processing bot repository, wherein the claim processing bot repository includes a plurality of existing bots that are generated for automatically processing claims associated with particular subsets of vehicles and particular subsets of claim processing functionalities, wherein the plurality of existing bots are generated by processing a plurality of earlier-received claims associated with a respective subset of vehicles and a respective subset of claim processing functionalities using a machine learning model; and processing the initial claim, wherein processing the initial claim includes: determining that the initial claim includes one or more defects; generating a corrected claim by automatically correcting the one or more defects, wherein analyzes the initial claim to correct the one or more defects by detecting a correct submission pattern from past submissions and rejection patterns associated with the initial claim and modifying the initial claim with the correct submission pattern; and submitting the corrected claim to the claim service processor – are simply being facilitated by generically recited computing elements, e.g., “using a specific bot.” (The additional details describing the claim processing bot repository and plurality of existing bots are part of the abstract idea, since they merely elaborate on the solution determined by the administrator after processing the initial claim.)
MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear, however, that the use of generic machinery to accomplish the tasks of the abstract idea does not integrate into practical application and is not significantly more.
For these reasons, examiner maintains the Abstract Idea rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Insurance Claim Processing Using RPA Along With Chatbot” with teaches: Across the Insurance industry, the organizations have made some significant and major changes to make their whole core process into modernize approach to make things easier and more efficient for both the customers and organization. To serve a growing customer base and improve the overall customer experience across all the touch points, enterprises are attempting to move away from isolated system of transaction, move towards contextual system of Engagement. Many insurers already have some level of automation such as scanning, uploading documents for processing or automated bank transfer transactions, etc. But sometimes invariably may lead to poor performance or slow processes. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) involves the use of software robots, to perform business tasks similar to human users. RPA can help them to achieve their business objectives while leveraging existing technology and boosting their returns on previous and current transformation investments. Insurers can use the RPA for handling the high volume & complex data at greater speeds in less time for processing this request. RPA is ready to help claims organizations advance and enhance their outcomes in the digital era through increased automation, higher productivity and increased focus for claims professionals.
US 20230005070, which teaches: Aspects of the disclosure relate to using machine learning methods for chatbot selection. A computing platform may train a plurality of machine learning models, each corresponding to a chatbot. The computing platform may train an additional machine learning model to route queries to the plurality of machine learning models based on contents of the queries. The computing platform may receive a query, and may analyze the query using the additional machine learning model. The computing platform may route, based on the query analysis, the query to the plurality of machine learning models. The computing platform may generate, using the plurality of machine learning models, a response to the query. The computing platform may send the response to the query and one or more commands directing a client device to display the response to the query, which may cause the client device to display the response to the query.
US 20230214936, which teaches: Methods for submitting an insurance claim for damaged motor vehicle glass are provided that can include: receiving a plurality of images associated with motor vehicle glass at processing circuitry; performing image processing operations on each of the plurality of images to determine one or more of glass damage, glass type, and/or claim fraud; and submitting an insurance claim for motor vehicle glass repair or replace based on the glass type or damage, or flagging the claim as fraud.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629