Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 12-December-2024. No priority has been claimed in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of the effective filing date as the priority date.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23-February-2026, 27-March-2026, 24-April-2026, and 13-July-2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following minor grammatical/typographical error: “triggering a voice-AI engine to automatically initiate the voice-AI call session the user” should read “triggering a voice-AI engine to automatically initiate the voice-AI call session with the user”. 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 2, 9, and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims recite “the ranked list is provided to a computing device of the user during but separate from the voice-AI call session”. There is no definitive support from the original disclosure that the information (e.g. the ranked list) is provided separately during the voice-AI call session. The only relevant disclosure from the Specification teaches that the rankings can be provided through other communications, such as text or email, as disclosed:
[0165] “In certain examples, the computing system 100 can provide the service provider rankings or assignments to the user 194 via a voice-AI call session (1317), or via other AI-driver mean, such as text or email (1319)”.
Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement, and clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 9, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite “the ranked list is provided to a computing device of the user during but separate from the voice-AI call session”. As similarly discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, it is unclear how the ranked list is provided separately during the voice-AI call session as there is no support in the original disclosure, whether it means to communicate the ranked list separately while the voice-AI call is in session, to communicate the ranked list in another voice-AI call session, or to communicate the ranked list via separate methods. Therefore, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, and clarification is required.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted as “the ranked list is provided to a computing device of the user via separate communicative methods, such as text or email”.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims recite “a … method performed by one or more [people], comprising:
… conduct a [voice-phone] call session with a user, following a claim event that damages a property of the user, the [voice-phone] call session providing information to the user about an intelligent service assignment to mitigate damage or loss to the property;
wherein … conducting the [voice-phone] call session includes:
determining a claim event involving damage or loss to the property of the user;
making a determination as to a type and a severity of damage to the property from the claim event;
determining information about the property, the information including a location and a set of characteristics of the property;
based at least in part on the claim event, the determination of the type and severity of the damage to the property, and the determined information about the property, generating the intelligent service assignment by matching the user with a corresponding set of service providers based at least in part on the location of the property and the type or extent of the damage;
triggering a [voice-phone] [group] to … initiate the [voice-phone] call session with the user; and
during the [voice-phone] call session, initiating a [voice-phone] [group] to provide information to the user about the matched set of service providers using [voice-phone] speech.”
The limitation of the claims recited above, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. system, computer, processor, AI, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), recites Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. The method recited above is a process of determining a claim event (e.g. processing data), generating intelligent service assignment for risk mitigation (e.g. data analysis), and providing the user with the generated output.
All these steps recited by the claims can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(A):
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
• a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).”
Although the claim may recite using a computer to determine, generate, and provide data, performing a mental process on a generic computer still recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(C):
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Additionally, the claims recite a process of data analysis associated with claims for insurance, along with risk mitigation, as disclosed throughout the Specification. The claims include various interactions between people to conduct phone calls providing information regarding the insurance claim. The method of providing recommendations based on claims data analysis is fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions, wherein the process involves interactions between people, which are all under certain methods of organizing human activities.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea, mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “computing system”, “network communication interface”, “processor”, “memory”, “engine”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and “voice-AI” perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, and are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities, such as: determine data, generate data, and provide data, as disclosed by Specification:
[0041] “As used herein, a computing device refers to devices corresponding to desktop computers, smartphones or tablet computing devices, laptop computers, virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) headsets, etc., that can provide network connectivity and processing resources for communicating with a computing system over one or more networks”
[0044] “Some examples described herein can generally require the use of computing devices, including processing and memory resources. For example, one or more examples described herein may be implemented, in whole or in part, on computing devices such as servers, desktop computers, tablet computers or smartphones, laptop computers, VR or AR devices, or network equipment (e.g., routers)
[0179] “FIG. 16 is a block diagram illustrating an example user computing device, according to examples described herein. In many implementations, the computing device 1600 can comprise a mobile computing device, such as a smartphone, tablet computer, laptop computer, VR or AR headset device, and the like”
Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to determine, generate, or provide data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities) 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). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims recite certain steps to be performed “automatically”, such as “automatically conduct a voice-AI call session with a user” and “triggering a voice-AI engine to automatically initiate the voice-AI call session with the user”. This is a mere recitation of performing the generic functionality of the generic computing system, as there is no technical details on how such steps are being performed “automatically”, how the underlying technology is manipulated to perform the steps “automatically”, or how any of the components or the system is being controlled or changed to perform certain steps “automatically”. As similarly discussed above, mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The claims also recite an additional element associated with artificial intelligence, such as “automatically conduct a voice-AI call session with a user”, “triggering a voice-AI engine to automatically initiate the voice-AI call session with the user”, and “during the voice-AI call session, initiating a voice-AI engine to provide information to the user about the matched set of service providers using voice-AI speech”. However, this additional element is recited at a mere “apply-it” level, wherein the AI is merely being applied as a black-box application to “conduct” or “initiate” a call session (e.g. make a phone call), and provide information using voice-AI speech (e.g. read a script), without providing any technical details or steps on how the AI or any of the underlying technology is being improved, used, controlled, manipulated, changed, altered, or modified to perform the claimed method. As similarly, discussed above, mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “wherein generating the intelligent service assignment includes determining a ranked and matching list of service providers, wherein at least some information about the ranked list is provided to a computing device of the user during but separate from the voice-AI call session.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “wherein the operations include: initiating, during the voice-AI call session, a guided content capture process on a computing device of the user, the guided content capture process guiding the user in capturing image data that reflects the damage to the property.” The claims provide further steps to capture data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “wherein the property of the user comprises a vehicle of the user, and wherein the one or more intelligent service assignment comprises at least one of a towing company, a vehicle rental company, or a body repair shop.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite “wherein the property of the user comprises a home of the user, and wherein the intelligent service assignment includes one or more home repair companies.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite “wherein the operations include communication information about the intelligent service assignment via one or more additional AI-driven means.” The claims provide further steps of providing data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 14 recite “wherein one or more additional AI-driven means are included in a customized communication strategy generated for the user based on previous communication sessions with the user.” The claims provide further steps of providing data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claims, each claim recites using a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisberg et al. (US 20140122133 A1) in view of Williams et al. (US 20240331068 A1).
As per Claims 1, 8, and 15, Weisberg discloses a computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors, comprising:
automatically conduct a … session with a user, following a claim event that damages a property of the user, the … session providing information to the user about an intelligent service assignment to mitigate damage or loss to the property ([0023] “The intermediary claim manager 40 communicates the claim assessment to the insurer 30 for approval as indicated in step 180. The claim assessment can be communicated to the insurer by transmitting the claim assessment through the network 50, for example, During communication of the claim assessment by the intermediary claim manager 40 to the insurer 30, the claim assessment is secured and cannot be altered”);
wherein automatically conducting the … session includes:
determining a claim event involving damage or loss to the property of the user (See Figure 1 – step 150, as disclosed [0020] “the application prompts the insured 20 to enter claim information, as shown in step 150. The application prompts the insured 20 to provide information related to the incident and the damages to the property 22”);
making a determination as to a type and a severity of damage to the property from the claim event (See Figure 1 – step 170, as disclosed [0022] “In another step 170, the intermediary claim manager 40 assesses the claim … In one embodiment, the intermediary claim manager 40 may also receive the photos of the damaged property 22 and catalog the photos into categories such as damage severity … In a non-limiting example, the damage can be categorized by area of the car for vehicle damage such as front end damage versus back end damage or a rating system can be used to categorize the damage. However, it is understood that the intermediary claim manager 40 can use other categorization as desired” or see also [0021] “The assessment report may include information pertaining to total loss, repair estimate, or replacement cost, for example”);
determining information about the property, the information including a location and a set of characteristics of the property (See Figure 1 – step 160, as disclosed [0021] “As shown in step 160, the intermediary claim manager 40 receives the information and photographs inputted by the insured 20 through the application and confirms key claim data … The intermediary claim manager 40 compares and confirms key claim data such as the VIN or address provided by the insured 20 with the VIN or address provided by the insurer 30 in the back-end portal of the web portal software to correctly identify the insured 20. The photographs and other information provided by the insured 20 are appended to the claim information provided by the insurer 30 and stored in the hack-end portal”);
based at least in part on the claim event, the determination of the type and severity of the damage to the property, and the determined information about the property, generating the intelligent service assignment by matching the user with a corresponding set of service providers based at least in part on the location of the property and the type or extent of the damage (See Figure 1 – step 410, as disclosed [0027] “The intermediary claim manager 40 provides a list of service providers 34, 44 to the insured 20 as data in the application, as shown in step 410” and see also [0024] “The claim assessment will provide the insured 20 with various settlement options. In one embodiment, the settlement options include … choosing a service provider such as a repair shop or repair professional … However, it is understood that other options can be provided to the insured 20, as desired, such as providing other services such as a rental car service or temporary housing, choosing an inspector or estimator or expert, or providing any other information to the insured 20 to assist with the settlement of the claim”);
…
during the … session, initiating [communications] to provide information to the user about the matched set of service providers …([0027] “The intermediary claim manager 40 provides a list of service providers 34, 44 to the insured 20 as data in the application, as shown in step 410. In one embodiment, a list and viewable map of the closest service providers 34, 44 are provided through the application to the insured 20. The application on the device 24 allows the insured 20 to view photos of the service providers 34, 44, the address of the service providers 34, 44, and customer reviews of the service providers 34, 44. Other information can be provided as desired such as the rank of the service providers 34, 44 according to the intermediary claim manager 40 or recommendations from the insurer 30, and distance of travel to the service providers 34, 44 for the insured 20”).
Although Weisberg teaches performing data analysis associated with the insurance claim to communicate information regarding service providers, Weisberg does not seem to explicitly disclose of utilizing a “voice-AI” call session to communicate the information to the user. However, Williams teaches:
automatically conduct a voice-AI call session with a user, following a claim event that damages a property of the user, the voice-AI call session providing information to the user about an intelligent service assignment to mitigate damage or loss to the property ([0056] “An enterprise may be able to use programmable chatbots, such the chatbot 150 (e.g., ChatGPT), to provide tailored, conversational-like remediation, repair, and/or reimbursement requests. In one aspect, the chatbot may be capable of making a request, providing relevant information, answering service provider and/or insurance agent questions, any of which may assist and/or replace the need for human initiated conversations”);
…
triggering a voice-AI engine to automatically initiate the voice-AI call session with the user ([0097] “The chatbot 150 may communicate with the user device 330 via audio, … video, … and/or any other suitable communication means”); and
during the voice-AI call session, initiating a voice-AI engine to provide information to the user about the matched set of service providers using voice-AI speech ([0096] “The chatbot 150 may initiate communication with a user device 330 and provide the selected subset of service providers and the relevant information from that selected subset of service providers” wherein [0127] “The chatbot 150 may operate in a conversational manner and provide and collect information without any human intervention”. Audio indicates a telephone call or video as video conferencing, as disclosed from examples [0093] “The chatbot 150 may communicate with the sump pump service providers 340A-340N via (i) audio (e.g., a telephone call), … (iv) video such as video conferencing” and [0110] “The chatbot 150 may communicate with the flood remediation providers 440A-440N via (i) audio (e.g., a telephone call), … (iv) video such as video conferencing” or also [0127] “The chatbot 150 may communicate with the insurance provider 540 via (i) audio (e.g., a telephone call), … (iv) video such as video conferencing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize chatbot communications via telephone call with respect to the insurance claim to provide information regarding the service providers as in Williams in the system executing the method of Weisberg with the motivation of offering to provide more accurate outputs based on collected data and reduce time in waiting human interventions while [0056] “personalize future support and/or improve the chatbot's functionality, e.g., when retraining and/or fine-tuning the chatbot” as taught by Williams over that of Weisberg.
As per Claims 2, 9, and 16, Weisberg discloses the computing system of claim 1, the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, and the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein generating the intelligent service assignment includes determining a ranked and matching list of service providers, wherein at least some information about the ranked list is provided to a computing device of the user during but separate from the voice-AI call session ([0027] “The intermediary claim manager 40 provides a list of service providers 34, 44 to the insured 20 as data in the application, as shown in step 410 … Other information can be provided as desired such as the rank of the service providers 34, 44 according to the intermediary claim manager 40 or recommendations from the insurer 30, … Step 410 allows the insured 20 to compare and contrast the service providers 34, 44 and choose the service provider 34, 44 that would be most beneficial to the insured 20” wherein [0097] “The chatbot 150 may communicate with the user device 330 via audio, text messages, instant messages, video, e-mail, application notifications, and/or any other suitable communication means. A user may select one of the service providers via the user device 330, which may communicate the service provider selection to the chatbot 150”).
Examiner’s Note: See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection regarding the claim limitation “the ranked list is provided to a computing device of the user during but separate from the voice-AI call session” being interpreted as “the ranked list is provided to a computing device of the user via separate communicative methods, such as text or email”.
As per Claims 6, 13, and 20, Weisberg may not explicitly disclose, but Williams discloses the computing system of claim 1, the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, and the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the operations include communication information about the intelligent service assignment via one or more additional AI-driven means ([0096] “The chatbot 150 may initiate communication with a user device 330 and provide the selected subset of service providers and the relevant information from that selected subset of service providers” wherein ([0056] “An enterprise may be able to use programmable chatbots, such the chatbot 150 (e.g., ChatGPT), to provide tailored, conversational-like remediation, repair, and/or reimbursement requests. In one aspect, the chatbot may be capable of making a request, providing relevant information, answering service provider and/or insurance agent questions, any of which may assist and/or replace the need for human initiated conversations”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the chatbot communicating through additional AI-driven communications as in Williams in the system executing the method of Weisberg with the motivation of offering to provide more accurate outputs based on collected data and reduce time in waiting human interventions while [0056] “personalize future support and/or improve the chatbot's functionality, e.g., when retraining and/or fine-tuning the chatbot” as taught by Williams over that of Weisberg.
As per Claim 19, Weisberg may not explicitly disclose, but Williams discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the property of the user comprises a home of the user, and wherein the intelligent service assignment includes one or more home repair companies ([0062] “In one aspect, the supervised training dataset 212 may include prompts and responses which may be relevant to requesting sump pump repair and/or replacement, flood remediation services, and/or flood reimbursement”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize home repair recommendations as in Williams in the system executing the method of Weisberg with the motivation of offering to provide more accurate outputs based on collected data and reduce time in waiting human interventions while [0056] “personalize future support and/or improve the chatbot's functionality, e.g., when retraining and/or fine-tuning the chatbot” as taught by Williams over that of Weisberg.
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisberg, in view of Williams, and in view of KURUVILLA et al. (US 20210160459 A1).
As per Claims 3, 10, and 17, Weisberg may not explicitly disclose, but KURUVILLA discloses the computing system of claim 1, the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, and the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the operations include:
initiating, during the voice-AI call session, a guided content capture process on a computing device of the user, the guided content capture process guiding the user in capturing image data that reflects the damage to the property (See Figure 8, as disclosed [0131] “Using the instructions module, the server 160 obtains instructions for obtaining video data of the vehicle based on the damage location and sends the instructions to the remote computing device 100 (step 820) … Each instruction set may be associated with a particular damage location and/or a particular vehicle type. Each instruction set may include a starting point and an ending point for obtaining video data of the vehicle at the damage location. Each instruction set may be video instructions, photo instructions and/or text instructions”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize guided content capture process during a chat-bot session as in KURUVILLA in the system executing the method of Weisberg with the motivation of offering to [0002-0004] improve the claims process while reducing fraudulent claims as taught by KURUVILLA over that of Weisberg.
As per Claims 4, 11, and 18, Weisberg discloses the computing system of claim 3, the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10, and the computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein the property of the user comprises a vehicle of the user, and wherein the intelligent service assignment comprises at least one of a towing company, a vehicle rental company, or a body repair shop ([0016] “The service providers 34 can be rental car providers, automobile repair shops, construction businesses, home inspection professionals, construction or vehicle suppliers, trade professionals, or other professionals or suppliers, as desired”).
As per Claims 5 and 12, Weisberg may not explicitly disclose, but Williams discloses the computing system of claim 3, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein the property of the user comprises a home of the user, and wherein the intelligent service assignment includes one or more home repair companies ([0062] “In one aspect, the supervised training dataset 212 may include prompts and responses which may be relevant to requesting sump pump repair and/or replacement, flood remediation services, and/or flood reimbursement”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize home repair recommendations as in Williams in the system executing the method of Weisberg with the motivation of offering to provide more accurate outputs based on collected data and reduce time in waiting human interventions while [0056] “personalize future support and/or improve the chatbot's functionality, e.g., when retraining and/or fine-tuning the chatbot” as taught by Williams over that of Weisberg.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisberg, in view of Williams, and in view of Coughlan et al. (US 8848879 B1).
As per Claims 7 and 14, Salodkar may not explicitly disclose, but Coughlan discloses the computing system of claim 6, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein one or more additional AI-driven means are included in a customized communication strategy generated for the user based on previous communication sessions with the user ([Col 2 Lines 33-35] “In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for customizing a call notification based on communication history” wherein [Col 3 Lines 39-43] “The term "module" as used herein refers to any known or later developed hardware, software, firmware, artificial intelligence, fuzzy logic, or combination of hardware and software that is capable of performing the functionality associated with that element”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize customized communications based on communication history as in Coughlan in the system executing the method of Salodkar with the motivation of offering to improve user experience with customized notifications as taught by Coughlan over that of Salodkar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 02-February-2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously applied 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 13 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8 to 10, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the additional elements associated with the “AI” is recited at a mere “apply-it” level, wherein the AI is merely being applied as a black-box application to “conduct” or “initiate” a call session (e.g. make a phone call), and provide information using voice-AI speech (e.g. read a script), without providing any technical details or steps on how the AI or any of the underlying technology is being improved, used, controlled, manipulated, changed, altered, or modified to perform the claimed method. Mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The claims, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Mere “apply it" is not “significantly more”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10 to 12, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection with the combination of referenced prior arts (Weisberg in view of Williams) still teaches the amended claim limitations of the independent claims, for at least the cited disclosure as discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
