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 March 9, 2025 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 October 23, 2025 and December 30, 2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been added in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
Priority
The present application claims priority to provisional application 63/606,390, filed on December 5, 2023.
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 “wherein the second portion of information concerning the vetted claim is different from the first portion of information concerning the vetted claim.” However, the Specification does not provide support for the new matter.
Claims 2-7, 10, 12-17, 20, 22-27, and 30 depend from 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 vetted claim for a vehicle from an initial claim provided by a submitter; by: determining that the initial claim includes one or more defects, and automatically correcting the one or more defects that analyzes past submissions and rejection patterns to identify a pattern associated with 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 vetted claim for the vehicle from the submitter to a claim service processor;
accessing a claim processing system associated with the claim service processor by obtain[ing] a first portion of information concerning the vetted claim, and obtain[ing] a second portion of information concerning the vetted claim, wherein the second portion of information concerning the vetted claim is different from the first portion of information concerning the vetted claim; and
obtaining a status report for the vetted claim from the claim processing system.
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 a claim processing bot”; “by autonomously navigating a website of the claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the claim service processor to”; “utilizing an application program interface associated with the 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 the claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the claim service processor to”; “utilizing an application program interface associated with the 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 the claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the claim service processor to”; “utilizing an application program interface associated with the 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, correct, submit, access, and obtain 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 Strange et al. (US 20130297353 A1, hereinafter “Strange”) in view of Cella (US 20230078448 A1, hereinafter, “Cella”), and further in view of Ban (US 20070022410 A1, hereinafter, “Ban”).
Claims 1, 11, and 21, Strange discloses a computer-implemented method (para. [0009] method), executed on a computing device (para. [0009] mobile device); 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 (para. [0385]); and a computing system including a processor and memory configured to perform operations (para. [0385]), comprising:
generating a vetted claim for a vehicle from an initial claim provided by a submitter; by: determining that the initial claim includes one or more defects, and automatically correcting the one or more defects (Strange para. [0005], is directed to overcoming “inaccuracies when filing the claim”. In claim 3 disclosing “processing the at least one mobile image by correcting an aspect of the image to improve the image quality” and para. [0109] “perform various processing on a mobile image to correct various defects in the image quality”);
submitting the vetted claim for the vehicle from the submitter to a claim service processor (para. [0074] disclosing “application on the mobile device coordinates the initiation and submission of an insurance claim by capturing images of documents and other information needed for the insurance claim using the image capture capability, then processing the images to extract content which is transmitted to an insurance company for processing of the claim”);
accessing a claim processing system associated with the claim service processor (Fig. 2 and para. [0084] disclosing the completed claim request is transmitted to the insurance server for processing by an insurance company, which will then process the claim); and
obtaining a status report for the vetted claim from the claim processing system (para. [0085] disclosing the application indicates the status of the claim).
However, Strange fails to expressly teach:
using a claim processing bot that analyzes past submissions and rejection patterns to identify a pattern associated with the one or more defects,
by autonomously navigating a website of the claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the claim service processor to obtain a first portion of information concerning the vetted claim, and
utilizing an application program interface associated with the claim processing system to obtain a second portion of information concerning the vetted claim;
Cella is in similar field of system and method of enterprise management platforms including insurance claim, which specifically teaches,
using a claim processing bot that analyzes past submissions and rejection patterns to identify a pattern associated with the one or more defects (Cella: para. [0096] 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);
by autonomously navigating a website of the claim service processor using robotic playback automation that defines a sequence of actions performed on the website of the claim service processor to obtain a first portion of information concerning the vetted claim (Cella: para. [0058], [0110], [0434], [0440], and [01278] teaching utilizing robotic process automation system on the platform to support the processing system), and
utilizing an application program interface associated with the claim processing system to obtain a second portion of information concerning the vetted claim (para. [0118] teaching the use of “application program interfaces (APIs)),
wherein the second portion of information concerning the vetted claim is different from the first portion of information concerning the vetted claim (Cella: para. [0058], [0110] teaches the obtaining of first portion of information utilizing robotic process automation (RPA); Then Cella para. [0118] teaches the Application programming interface (APIs) for obtaining second portion of information. Cella does not indicate the first portion of information utilizing RPA to be the same as the second portion of information utilizing API).
Further, Ban is in similar field of method, system, and service for processing warrant claims, which teaches the motivation for post-submission monitoring (para. [0014], Ban described the concern and method for improving the length of time to process a warranty claim which is identified as a key performance indicator. To monitor this key performance indicator, one ordinary skilled in the art must necessarily access the claim processing system after submission to check for claim’s status.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the automated system and method for filing insurance claims using mobile device of Strange to include the features of AI and automation technologies of pattern analysis, RPA, and APIs as taught by Cella for the motivation provided in Ban for improving the automotive warranty claims process and teaches identifying pain points (para. [0039]) and incomplete data (para. [0040]) which are analogous to the claimed defects for address the recurring “pain points” in the warranty industy. Thus, it would have been recognized that claim rejection data is a form of failure data and that analyzing it for patterns to proactively correct new claims would be a predictable application of Cella’s AI techniques to solve the problem identified by Ban for the further benefit of identifying which environments or activities would most benefit from automation for purposes of improved delivery times, mitigation of congestion, and other performance improvements (Cella, para. [0440]).
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. Strange 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. [0086] disclosing automobile collision claim).
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. Strange fails to expressly disclose, 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.
Nonetheless, Ban, is in similar field of method, system, and service for processing warrant claims, which specifically teaches,
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.”)
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 to include the features of the submitter to be a dealership associated with the vehicle, as taught by Ban for the motivation and benefit of integration of business rules and communication between OEM, supplier, and dealer to orchestrate business events in an on-demand environment (para. [0074]).
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. Strange 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. [0086]-[0087] disclosing entering personal and vehicle information).
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. Strange fails to expressly disclose, wherein the fleet vehicle includes one or more of: a corporate vehicle; a rideshare vehicle; and a rental vehicle.
Nonetheless, 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. Strange fails to expressly disclose, wherein the claim service processor is an original equipment manufacturer of the vehicle.
Nonetheless, Ban, is in similar field of method, system, and service for processing warrant claims, which specifically teaches,
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).
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 to include the features of the claim service processor is an original equipment manufacturer of the vehicle, as taught by Ban for the motivation and benefit of integration of business rules and communication between OEM, supplier, and dealer to orchestrate business events in an on demand environment (para. [0074]).
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. Strange fails to expressly disclose, wherein the claim service processor is a third-party warranty provider for the vehicle.
Nonetheless, Ban, is in similar field of method, system, and service for processing warrant claims, which specifically teaches,
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).
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 to include the features of the claim service processor is a third-party warranty provider for the vehicle, as taught by Ban for the motivation and benefit of integration of business rules and communication between OEM, supplier, and dealer to orchestrate business events in an on demand environment (para. [0074]).
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. Strange 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. [0085] disclosing the application indicates the status of the claim and when the claim has been paid).
Response to Remarks
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).
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 Examiner asserts the combination of Strange, Cella, and Ban make obvious of the amended claim limitation. In Cella para. [0058], [0110] teaches robotic process automation (RPA) for obtaining first portion of information concerning the vetted claim. Then Cella para. [0118] teaches the application programming interface (APIs) for obtaining second portion of information concerning the vetted claim. These are two fundamental different technologies of communications. The specification does not indicate distinguish how the first portion and second portion of the information are different other than information can be retrieved using RPA for first information and API for second information. Therefore, in the same logic, the retrieving information the first portion of information obtained via RPA is different than the second portion of information obtained via API. These technologies are taught in Cella. Thus, the combination of Strange, Cella, and Ban make obvious of the amended claim limitation, “wherein the second portion of information concerning the vetted claim is different from the first portion of information concerning the vetted claim;”
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
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
Prosecution Insights