DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 06/25/2026. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 4 and 14 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
4. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps) and claim 11 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 11 recite:
“establishing…a data connection”, “receiving during the…guided…inspection a download of a guidesheet document, the guidesheet including information indicative of an inspection type and identification of required artifacts for the inspection type;”, “wherein the guidesheet document is in a format from a group consisting of: HTML, plain text, XML, a JSON-encoded document, and the format is parsed”, “enabling an upload of artifacts…to…during the…guided…inspection;”, “wherein the artifacts comprise at least a media in which GPS coordinates have been obtained and reverse geocoding to a street address of the media along with a watermark of a date and time;”, “detecting, during the…guided…inspection, a loss of the data connection;”, “wherein the detection of the data loss of the data connection is a signal from a timeout in AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML)”,“transitioning…to a self-guided inspection from the…inspection upon detection of the loss of data connection;”, “informing…what artifacts are required to complete the self-guided inspection;”, “enabling… to continue collection of artifacts…during the loss of the data connection; “and “enabling…to upload artifacts…after the data connection is restored.”, “wherein…is configured to run…to determine if the upload of artifacts…are complete…determining that the remaining desired artifacts are not complete by waiting a configurable period of time of no upload from the commencement of artifacts uploads…”
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea of managing and controlling how a self-guided field inspection is performed by a field agent when a data connection is lost which encompasses commercial interactions (i.e., sales/marketing activities, business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.), that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
Consistent with the specification [¶ 0002-0007], the limitations recited in the claim describe the type of guidesheet document to be used during inspection, enabling a field agent to upload artifacts, monitoring data connectivity of the field agent during the inspection, performing self-guided inspection workflow tasks with the field agent to document work when networking services become unavailable, uploading the artifacts when the networking services become available which involve concepts relating to commercial interactions that inspection and insurance companies typically perform with on-site personnel or contractors and managing interactions between parties. These limitations can reasonably be characterized as subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a computer-implemented method comprising:”, “a data processor” and “a data network”, “an inspector platform on a computing device”, “at least one field agent platform on a mobile device”, “automatically”, “at a JavaScript in a browser, an app code” ,“for local storage”, “from local storage”, “a computer implemented system” - see claims 1 and 11, are all recited at a high level of generality in light of the specification. Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception. These claimed additional elements merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)
The other additional elements of: “for transforming a live virtual inspection into a self-guided inspection”, “wherein the data connection comprises a streaming video connection”, “live”, and “virtual” is/are an attempt to limit the claimed invention the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h)
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a computer-implemented method comprising:”, “a data processor” and “a data network”, “an inspector platform on a computing device”, “at least one field agent platform on a mobile device”, “automatically”, “at a JavaScript in a browser, an app code” ,“for local storage”, “from local storage”, “a computer implemented system” - see claims 1 and 11 amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims are 2-10 and 12-20:
Claims 2 and 12 recite “wherein the mobile device is a mobile phone.” which is an additional element recited in the claim and does not lead towards eligibility. In this case, mere recitation of concrete or tangible components does not automatically integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claims 3 and 13 recite “wherein the artifacts are documents, images, or videos” which further specifies the type data/information uploaded by the field agent but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 5 and 15 recite “further comprising enabling the inspector platform to locate a desired inspection type and notify the at least one field agent platform of the desired inspection type.” which narrows activities that may be carried out by the inspector but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 6 and 16 recite “wherein the at least one field agent platform executes processing logic in a form from a group consisting of: a software application (App) and software within a browser” is/are additional elements recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification (i.e., ¶ 00023) and amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 7 and 17 recite “wherein the inspection type is used to fetch a specific guidesheet document corresponding to the inspection type from a backend server.” which narrows how the judicial exception may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 8 and 18 recite “further comprising presenting a prompt at the at least one field agent platform advising a field agent to continue an inspection while disconnected from the data network.” which narrows how the judicial exception may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 9-10 and 19-20 recite “further comprising storing a geo-location corresponding to each of the artifacts.” and “further configured to store comments corresponding to each of the artifacts from a field agent.” which further specifies the type of data/information to be stored during the inspection but does not make the claim any less abstract. Therefore, with respect to the dependent claims when viewed separately and in combination with the judicial exception, the recited limitations as whole fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The Applicant also thanks the Examiner for the consideration of the previous amendment and respectfully traverses the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, presenting new claim amendments that recite non-abstract, non-generic, and technically inventive improvements to live virtual inspections. The claims define eligible subject matter under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims since the claims recite substantial elements such as an inspector platform on a computing device, at least one field agent platform on a mobile device, a data processor and a data network, specific data loss detection means, and specific geocoding of media for fraud prevention.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The alleged technological improvements for live virtual inspections using data loss detection and geocoding of media are claimed using result based functional language without any technological details of an advance. The ability to collect inspection data, i.e., media/content, offline and then upload the inspection data when the network service restores is not a technical improvement to computer or network functionality. The Examiner asserts the additional elements (such as an inspector platform on a computing device, at least one field agent platform on a mobile device, a data processor and a data network) are recited in the claim at a high-level of generality and do not preclude the identified limitations under Step 2A Prong One from being within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Claims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant argues “The Office Action characterizes the claims as being directed to mental processes and methods of organizing human activity. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The amended claims are not directed mere commercial interactions. Rather, the amended claims recite a computer-implemented sequence in which a live virtual inspection performed on a mobile device is transformed into a self-guided inspection due to a communication loss detected by a timeout in AJAX, and the content of the self- guided inspection is verifiable to prevent fraud.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The specificity of the presently recited techniques does not remove the claimed invention from being within the abstract idea realm. The description [¶ 0002-0007] of the subject matter reflects the focus of the claimed invention is for providing the ability to transition from a live virtual inspection to a self-guided inspection. In other words, the claim limitations manage and control how an inspection when network services are unavailable. The network service, i.e., type of data connection that is lost in this case, does not make the claim any less abstract. The remarks simply restate limitations from what has been determined to be part of the abstract idea. In this case, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not alter the analysis or confer patent eligibility. see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("A narrow claim directed to an abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible . . . .") For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The rejection overgeneralizes the claim and does not give proper weight to the claimed combination step. The claimed combined self-guided inspection is not merely information displayed after mental analysis. It is a generated verifiable output resulting from the recited selection and combination of the transformed self-guided inspection. The claim therefore recites more than a mental process or a human teaching interaction.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner asserts the previous rejection of the claims is proper. The previous rejection of record identified the limitations under Step 2A Prong One that recite an abstract idea and explained why these limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings. For example, the Specification [¶ 0002-0007] evidences the state of the art which indicates insurance companies and inspection companies previously used mobile devices to upload media and content for while performing inspections. Thus, the Specification confirms the subject matter being claimed relates to commercial interactions which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The remarks above made by Applicant do not make the claimed invention any less abstract. It is important to note using result-focused functional claim language is a frequent feature of ineligible claims, especially those that claim the use of generic computer and network technology to carry out business tasks. For these reasons, the 101 rejections are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Even assuming that some limitations could be characterized as abstract, the claims integrate any such concept into a practical application. The ordered combination is a transformed self-guided inspection with verifiable content. These limitations are not merely insignificant extra-solution activity. The fact that individual computer components may have been known does not establish that the claimed arrangement and workflow are conventional. Accordingly, the pending claims are not directed merely to an abstract idea and, in any event, recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner has updated the rejection in view of the amendments and notes the previous rejection did not indicate the claims recite insignificant extra solution activity. In the instant case, the claim and remarks fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of providing a transformed self-guided inspection with verifiable content into a patent-eligible application of that idea. These conclusory allegations that the prior art lacked the claimed arrangement and workflow of the asserted claims are insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b) - it is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components in a claim is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues “The amended claim limitation also overcome the Section 103 rejection since the prior art fails to disclose the artifacts comprising at least a media in which GPS coordinates have been obtained and reverse geocoding to a street address of the media along with a watermark of a date and time. Further, the prior art fails to disclose the detection of the loss of the data connection is a signal from a timeout in AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML).”
Applicant' s arguments, see pg. 2, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 of Gustafson (US 11,386,364 B1) in view of Clark (US 11,709,861 B1) in view of Nelson (US 2020/0410278 A1) in further view of Katis (US 2013/0301482 A1) has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights