DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on July 20, 2026 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20-27, and 30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed May 8, 2026 and July 21, 2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith
Response to Amendment
Claim Objection has been added.
Prior 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment, however, new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been added.
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
Prior 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment, however, new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been added.
Priority
The present application claims priority to provisional application 63/606,390, filed on December 5, 2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20-27, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1, 11, and 21 recite “a information concerning” should read “an information concerning” or “a” should be removed. Claims 2-7, 10, 12-17, 20, 22-27, and 30 depend on claims 1, 11, and 21 above and therefore inherit the claim objection of the independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the Specification, as originally filled fails to disclose with enough specificity, the following limitations:
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite “automatically correcting the one or more defects of each initial claim using one or more claim processing bots” and “automatically correcting the one or more defects using the respective claim processing bot;” However, the Specification does not provide support for the amendment now how the step is performed. That is, the specification para. [0071], “system can suggest corrective actions…” and para. [0089], “claim submission and monitoring process 10 may enable 412 the submitter (e.g., submitter 118) to correct one or more pieces of inaccurate information (e.g., inaccurate information 136)” describes the bot flags defects for the user/submitter to fix, not a bot correcting/amending the defects. In para. [0097]-[0101] describes the automatic correction in the context of a claim that has been submitted and rejected, which is contrary to the claimed limitation for correction to be performed at initial claims submission or prior to vehicle claim submissions and rejections. Thus, the claim amendment contradicts with the specification.
Claims 2-7, 10, 12-17, 20, 22-27, and 30 depend on claims 1, 11, and 21 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
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 1-7, 10-17, 20-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e. a process), claims 11-20 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine), and claims 21-30 are directed to a computer product (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1, 11, and 21, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 11, and 21, is
generating a plurality of vetted claims for a plurality of vehicles from a plurality of initial claims provided by one or more submitters by: receiving each initial claim of the plurality of initial claims for a vehicle from the plurality of vehicles, each initial claim being generated by a dealer management system repair order and destined for a claim service processor of a plurality of claim service processors; determining that each initial claim includes one or more defects based on one or more rejection patterns identified from a database generated from prior vehicle claim submissions and associated claim rejections, and automatically correcting the one or more defects of each initial claim by: process vehicle warranty claims for a vehicle series that includes the vehicle of a respective initial claim, analyzing past submissions and rejection patterns to identify a pattern associated with the one or more defects, and automatically correcting the one or more defects; (in App. Specification para. [0089], “enabling 408 the submitter (e.g., submitter 118) to address the identified defects (e.g., identified defects 126), claim submission and monitoring process 10 may enable 412 the submitter (e.g., submitter 118) to correct one or more pieces of inaccurate information (e.g., inaccurate information 136).” That is, the “automatically correcting” is manually performed by a person (i.e., submitter 118). The Examiner asserts the term “automatically” or “automated” does not mean without human interaction. Examiner asserts a process may be automatic even though a human initiates or may interrupt to the process. The term “automated” can be construed to mean “once initiated by a human, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function.” Collegenet, Inc. v. Applyyourself, Inc. (CAFC, 04-1202,-1222,-1251, 8/2/2005))
submitting the plurality of vetted claims for the plurality of vehicles from the one or more submitters to the plurality of claim service processors;
accessing a respective claim processing system associated with a respective claim service processor by obtain[ing] information concerning a first vetted claim, and obtain[ing] information concerning a second vetted claim; and
generating a status report for each of the first vetted claim from the information concerning the first vetted claim and the second vetted claim from the information concerning the second vetted claim.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of managing status report of claim processing.
The limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (e.g., generating a vetted claim; submitting vetted claim from a submitter to a claim service processor; accessing a claim processing system (which is also known as a set of procedures for which work is performed) associated with the claim service processor; and obtaining a status report) and analyzing information (while not expressly claimed, identifying status report information). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally and alternatively, the same claim limitations above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activity or behaviors, contract or legal obligations in commercial and legal industry. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the limitations recite a process of submitting vetted claim for a vehicle by a submitter to a claim service processor to obtain status report from the claim processing system that includes warranty and reimbursement system, as described in application’s specification paragraphs [0003]-[0004]. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in commercial interaction for a business practice of providing warranty claim processing service to the customer/submitter, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
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 merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “computer-implemented method, executed on a computer device”; “using one or more claim processing bots”; “selecting a respective claim processing bot from a claim processing bot repository by determining that the respective claim processing bot is configured to”; “by autonomously navigating a website of a first claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the first claim service processor to”; “utilizing an application program interface associated with a second claim processing system to”;
Claim 11: “computer program product residing on a computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor”; “using a claim processing bot”; “by autonomously navigating a website of a first claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the first claim service processor to”; “utilizing an application program interface associated with a second claim processing system to”;
Claim 21: “computing system including a processor and memory configured to”; “using a claim processing bot”; “by autonomously navigating a website of a first claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the first claim service processor to”; “utilizing an application program interface associated with a second claim processing system to”;
The additional element of a system comprising generic computer elements are found to recite mere instructions to apply a generic computer and technology to execute the method in the recited claim limitations, as merely using a computer to transmit, manipulate, and display information is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. The above-mentioned additional elements merely recite computer elements to generate, determine, process, correct, submit, and access information. The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, i.e. these generic computing elements are merely being used to perform the tasks of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication from the specification that the computer elements are anything but generic hardware and/or software, and the combination of elements is simply a generic computing system (see Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [00155]-[0157] describing generic computer system components and functions. In para. [0112]-[0118] describing result-based function for the claim processing bot. In para. [0141]-[0142] describing the generic function of robotic playback automation on website and robotic process automation for intended result). That is, the function of limitations [A]-[D] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations of [A]-[D] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer components (see Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [00155]-[0157] describing generic computer system components and functions. In para. [0112]-[0118] describing result-based function for the claim processing bot. In para. [0141]-[0142] describing the generic function of robotic playback automation on website and robotic process automation for intended result), as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2, 12, and 22, these claims recite additional descriptive information regarding the vetted claim, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims do not recite new additional element. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 3, 13, and 23, these claims recite additional descriptive information regarding the submitter information, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims do not recite new additional element. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 4-5, 14-15, and 24-25, these claims recite additional descriptive information regarding the vehicle information, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims do not recite new additional element. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 6-7, 16-17, and 26-27, these claims recite additional descriptive information regarding the claim service processor information, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims do not recite new additional element. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 10, 20, and 30, these claims recite additional descriptive information regarding the status report information, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims do not recite new additional element. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 10-17, 20-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-7, 10-17, 20-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban (US 20070022410 A1, hereinafter, “Ban”) in view of Cella (US 20230078448 A1, hereinafter, “Cella”).
Claims 1, 11, and 21, Ban discloses a computer-implemented method (para. [0003], and [0010], method), executed on a computing device (Abstract, claim 8, system); a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (claim 20); and a computing system including a processor and memory configured to perform operations (Abstract), comprising:
generating a plurality of vetted claims for a plurality of vehicles from a plurality of initial claims provided by one or more submitters by: receiving each initial claim of the plurality of initial claims for a vehicle from the plurality of vehicles, each initial claim being generated by a dealer management system repair order and destined for a claim service processor of a plurality of claim service processors (Abstract, para. [0014], Ban discloses a method and system for transforming the warranty claims process in the automotive industry. Para. [0038]; Fig. 2A discloses receiving warranty claims from a plurality of submitters, that a “dealer 182 diagnoses the incident 221, performs the service request 222 and submits a warranty claim 223.” Para. [0040], [0065], Ban discloses the claims are destined for a plurality of claim service processors, recognizing the burden on suppliers and dealers who must access a “multiple OEM warranty systems.”);
determining that each initial claim includes one or more defects (para. [0039], [0066], Ban discloses identifying defects in the claims, which is “pain points” in the process, noting defects include “incomplete data” captured from dealers, such as “lack of dealer narrative and vehicle configuration information” which delays the warranty claims process);
submitting the plurality of vetted claims for the plurality of vehicles from the one or more submitters to the plurality of claim service processors (para. [0038] and Fig. 2A discloses submitting the warranty claims to the respective OEMs which is the claim service processor);
generating a status report for each of the first vetted claim from the information concerning the first vetted claim and the second vetted claim from the information concerning the second vetted claim (para. [0047] and [0066] discloses generating reports and tracking the status, cycle time, and root causes of claims. Obtaining the status of the submitted claims to generate a report for the dealer is the for the purpose of accessing the OEM system).
However, Ban does not explicitly teach,
based on one or more rejection patterns identified from a database generated from prior vehicle claim submissions and associated claim rejections, and
automatically correcting the one or more defects of each initial claim using one or more claim processing bots by:
selecting a respective claim processing bot from a claim processing bot repository by determining that the respective claim processing bot is configured to process vehicle warranty claims for a vehicle series that includes the vehicle of a respective initial claim,
analyzing past submissions and rejection patterns to identify a pattern associated with the one or more defects, and
automatically correcting the one or more defects using the respective claim processing bot;
accessing a respective claim processing system associated with a respective claim service processor by: autonomously navigating a website of a first claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the first claim service processor to obtain a information concerning a first vetted claim, and utilizing an application program interface associated with a second claim processing system to obtain information concerning a second vetted claim.
Cella is in similar field of system and method of enterprise management platforms including insurance claim, which specifically teaches,
based on one or more rejection patterns identified from a database generated from prior vehicle claim submissions and associated claim rejections (para. [0096], Cella teaches a predictive maintenance intelligence service layer that predicts at least one of the anticipated component wear or the anticipated component failure by applying a clustering algorithm to identify at least one failure pattern in a set of failure data. In para. [0781], “Failure datastore 5310 may store failure data from machine 724 or similar machines running at different times and under different operating conditions.” Teaches the failures data is stored in a database of historical records.), and
automatically correcting the one or more defects of each initial claim using one or more claim processing bots by: selecting a respective claim processing bot from a claim processing bot repository by determining that the respective claim processing bot is configured to process vehicle warranty claims for a vehicle series that includes the vehicle of a respective initial claim (para. [2112] teaches RPA system 12652 enables the MPR 12100 automate workflows as well as any repetitive tasks and processes. Para. [1939], [2362] teaches a repository for automation task: “a library 12314 that maintains data from prior job requests…” “the library may include templates for various task definition-related activities, such as exemplary smart container configurations (e.g., based on task keyword and the like), exemplary team configurations (e.g., for performing certain types or classes of tasks), task definitions, workflows and workflow definitions,”),
analyzing past submissions and rejection patterns to identify a pattern associated with the one or more defects (para. [0096], Cella teaches a predictive maintenance intelligence service layer that predicts at least one of the anticipated component wear or the anticipated component failure by applying a clustering algorithm to identify at least one failure pattern in a set of failure data. Para. [0777], “artificial intelligence system 1160 may use a clustering algorithm to identify the failure pattern hidden in the failure data to train a model for detecting uncharacteristic or anomalous behavior.”), and
automatically correcting the one or more defects using the respective claim processing bot (Para. [0777], “artificial intelligence system 1160 may use a clustering algorithm to identify the failure pattern hidden in the failure data to train a model for detecting uncharacteristic or anomalous behavior.” Teaches using the algorithms to automate corrections);
accessing a respective claim processing system associated with a respective claim service processor by: autonomously navigating a website of a first claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the first claim service processor to obtain a information concerning a first vetted claim, and utilizing an application program interface associated with a second claim processing system to obtain information concerning a second vetted claim (para. [2519] teaches RPA navigates websites/GUI. In para. [2521] teaches RPA with API. Cella teaches automation platform interact with external third-party system using API and RPA for GUI navigation/screen scraping).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the warranty claims system and method of Ban to include the AI patten matching and RPA bot repository taught by Cella for the motivation to automate the resolution of the pain points (incomplete/defective data) explicitly identified by Ban (para. [0066]). One ordinary skill in the art would recognize that claim rejections are a form of failure data and would predictably apply Cella’s teaching of analyzing historical failure patterns to Ban’s database of past claim submissions to automatically correct errors. Furthermore, Ban teaches the dealership must submit claims to a plurality of different OEM systems and one ordinary skill in the art would predictably and obviously utilize an API to access the modern OEM system (second claim processing system) and utilize RPA to autonomously navigate the website of the legacy OEM system (first claim service processor). The claimed invention is simply the combination of a known business environment of automotive dealership warranty claims processing, as taught by Ban with known, standard automation tools of AI pattern matching, RPA bot repositories, and hybrid API with RPA system integration, as taught by Cella. The combination of the familiar elements according to known methods yields no more than predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 2, 12, and 22, the combination of Strange, Cella, and Ban make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21. Ban further discloses,
wherein the vetted 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 (para. [0038], “customer 181 brings the vehicle in 211 for warranty service or pursuant to a recall. The dealer 182 diagnoses the incident 221, performs the service request 222 and submits a warranty claim 223.”).
Claims 3, 13, and 23, the combination of Strange, Cella, and Ban make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21. Ban further discloses,
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 (para. [0037], “dealer 182 services the customer's vehicle 122 and submits a formal claim 123.”).
Claims 4, 14 and 24, the combination of Strange, Cella, and Ban make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21. Ban further discloses,
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 (para. [0037], [0038] discloses customer vehicle).
Claims 5, 15, and 25, the combination of Strange, Cella, and Ban make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 4, the computer program product of claim 14, and the computing system of claim 24. Cella further teaches,
Cella, is in similar field of system and method of enterprise management platforms including insurance claim, which specifically teaches,
wherein the fleet vehicle includes one or more of: a corporate vehicle; a rideshare vehicle; and a rental vehicle (Para. [0439] vehicle fleet management. Para. [0876] teaches delivery vehicles, trucks, and other hauling assets, which is representative of corporate vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method for filing insurance claims using mobile device of Strange for vehicle claims to include the features taught by Cella, for the motivation of monitoring and managing information being shared between entities in an effective manner (para. [0875] and [0887]).
Claims 6, 16, and 26, the combination of Strange, Cella, and Ban make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21. Ban further discloses,
wherein the claim service processor is an original equipment manufacturer of the vehicle (Fig. 1B and para. [0037] disclosing automobile manufacturer (the OEM 183) provides technical support 124 to the dealer 182 and processes 125 the claim 123 submitted by the dealer).
Claims 7, 17, and 27, the combination of Strange, Cella, and Ban make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21. Ban further discloses,
wherein the claim service processor is a third-party warranty provider for the vehicle (Para. [0038], “A flow chart 210 for the warranty claim process is shown in greater detail in FIG. 2A. The customer 181 brings the vehicle in 211 for warranty service or pursuant to a recall. The dealer 182 diagnoses the incident 221, performs the service request 222 and submits a warranty claim 223. The OEM 183 responds 231 to any dealer requests for technical support, and receives 232 and validates 233 the warranty claim”. The OEM functions as claim service processor and third-party warranty provider for the vehicle).
Claims 10, 20 and 30, the combination of Strange, Cella, and Ban make obvious of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computing system of claim 21. Ban further discloses,
wherein the status report defines one or more of: a current status for the vetted claim; a submission date for the vetted claim; an age for the vetted claim; an anticipated payment date for the vetted claim; and a reimbursement value for the vetted claim (para. [0006], “systems to track claims have been implemented;” Abstract and para. [0039], discloses identifying the length of time to process a warranty claim as key performance indicator that the system monitors, which the length of time requires tracking the submission date and the age of the claim. In para. [0038] and [0047] discloses the system tracks the determination of the pay out due the dealer and the payout for the dealer, who receives payment. The payout determination corresponds directly to the claimed reimbursement value for the vetted claim).
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections:
The rejection claim limitation has been removed, therefore, the corresponding 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
The Applicant asserts the amended claim limitations move the claims not directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite a practical application of the alleged abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In view of the specification, the claims and the specification do not provide technical details of how the technology is improved in any way. That is, the claims in view of the specification only recites steps or mere instructions that state the steps are to be performed on a computer, in other words, are “applied to” a computer for intended result without further explanation of how. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) 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).
Looking at the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination:
“A computer-implemented method, executed on a computer device”; “database” and “dealer management system” are generic computer components to carry out (“apply it”) the instruction of the abstract idea.
“Claim processing bots” and “claim-processing bot repository” are generic functional terms for software modules programmed to perform the abstracts steps of the business rules.
“by autonomously navigating a website of a first claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the first claim service processor to” (RPA) and “utilizing an application program interface associated with a second claim processing system to” (API) are specific technological tools for gathering data (status reports) and transmit data (claims).
The claims do no effect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. The specification does not teach a technical improvement to how RPA works, how APIs function, or how machine learning pattern recognition operates at a technical level. Instead, the claims merely apply these existing technological tools to automate the abstract business process of automotive warranty claim management. Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection:
The Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
The claims have been amended to shift the focus away from general mobile insurance image capturing and more towards automotive warranty claim processing. The Examiner asserts the combination of Ban and Cella make obvious of the amended claim limitation.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Hertenstein (US 20120143630 A1) is directed to a system and method for verifying insurance claim submissions by third party.
Singh et al. (US 20140297473 A1) is directed to a system and method for evaluating correction submissions with supporting evidence may include, subsequent to a submitter being provided with item description information for an item offered for sale, receiving a correction submission specified by the submitter. The correction submission may specify a proposed modification to an attribute(s) in the item description information.
T. A. Syed, M. S. Siddique, A. Nadeem, A. Alzahrani, S. Jan and M. A. K. Khattak, "A Novel Blockchain-Based Framework for Vehicle Life Cycle Tracking: An End-to-End Solution," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 111042-111063, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3002170; teaching transactions related to vehicles include manufacturing, buying, selling, paying insurance(takaful), obtaining regular inspection, leasing a vehicle from banks, getting in an accident, engaging in a traffic violation, calculating price predictions and renting a vehicle.
Conclusion
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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
