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.
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):
processing a plurality of earlier-received claims associated with a respective subset of vehicles and a respective subset of claim processing functionalities, thus defining a plurality of existing bots;
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 from the plurality of existing bots included within the claim processing bot repository;
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; and
dynamically adjusting the plurality of claim processing bots within the claim processing bot repository by modifying the claim processing bot repository based upon, at least in part, processing subsequent claims associated with various vehicles.
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 bot determination and bot repository adjustment are part of the abstract idea. In this instance, they merely elaborate on the evaluation steps performed by the administrator.)
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: generating a plurality of claim processing bots within a claim processing bot repository; using a specific bot included within the claim processing bot repository; the specific bot; using a machine learning model.
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 4/14/26 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 "generating a plurality of claim processing bots within a claim processing bot repository 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, thus defining a plurality of existing bots" and "dynamically adjusting the plurality of claim processing bots within the claim processing bot repository by modifying the claim processing bot repository based upon, at least in part, processing subsequent claims associated with various vehicles" 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 the process by which claim processing bots are generated using a machine learning model with training data in the form of earlier- received claims associated with a respective subset of vehicles and a respective subset of claim processing functionalities. Additionally, the claims describe dynamically adjusting the claim processing bots within the claim processing bot repository by modifying the repository based on subsequent claims for various vehicles. In this manner, amended independent claims 1, 11, and 21 describe how the claim processing bots are generated beyond the abstract idea and provide a practical application by dynamically adjusting the claim processing bots for subsequent claims.
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.
While well taken, 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 "generating a plurality of claim processing bots within a claim processing bot repository 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, thus defining a plurality of existing bots" and "dynamically adjusting the plurality of claim processing bots within the claim processing bot repository by modifying the claim processing bot repository based upon, at least in part, processing subsequent claims associated with various vehicles" 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 the process by which claim processing bots are generated using a machine learning model with training data in the form of earlier- received claims associated with a respective subset of vehicles and a respective subset of claim processing functionalities. Additionally, the claims describe dynamically adjusting the claim processing bots within the claim processing bot repository by modifying the repository based on subsequent claims for various vehicles. In this manner, amended independent claims 1, 11, and 21 describe how the claim processing bots are generated beyond the abstract idea and provide a practical application by dynamically adjusting the claim processing bots for subsequent claims.
Here, examiner’s position is that the steps of the abstract idea are simply being facilitated by generically recited computing elements, e.g., generating a plurality of claim processing bots within a claim processing bot repository; using a specific bot included within the claim processing bot repository; the specific bot; using a machine learning model. These additional elements are claimed and described in a results-oriented manner, which MPEP 2106.05(f) indicates is equivalent to “apply it.” This doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more, contrary to applicant’s assertions.
The additional details describing bot determination and bot repository adjustment are part of the abstract idea. In this instance, they merely elaborate on the evaluation steps performed by the administrator.
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:
US 20230208787, which teaches: The present disclosure generally relates to systems and methods for efficiently and dynamically integrating a chatbot into an application service. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to systems and methods that dynamically build custom components that enable the chatbot to communicate and facilitate the use of the application service directly from the chatbot application. Accordingly, the systems and methods described herein provide the benefit of integrating the chatbot application into an application service without having the application developer write code for the integration, thereby enhancing the computational efficiency of the integration and the reliability of the application service when new services or service functionality are added or modified.
US 20240303745, which teaches: A computer system may include one or more processors configured to: (1) obtain insurance claim information; (2) generate, via an ML chatbot (or voice bot), the customized presentation based upon the insurance claim information; and/or (3) provide, via the ML chatbot, the customized presentation to a user device, such as a visual depiction and/or a verbal description of the customized presentation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights