DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on March 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-15, 17, and 21 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-22 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1–22 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.
In sum, claims 1–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 8-14) and a machine (claims 1–7 and 15-22), where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose by:
receiving external sensor data from at least one external,…, coupled to or integrated into the vehicle, wherein the at least one external,…,detects one or more objects surrounding the vehicle;
execute a machine-learning,..,on the external sensor data, the machine-learning,…,trained on historical sensor data linked to a plurality of historical crash scenarios and identifying correlations between the historical sensor data and a level of severity of the corresponding historical vehicular crash;
determining,…, that a vehicular crash not involving the vehicle is imminent based upon the external sensor data;
generating, based upon an output of the executed machine-learning,…, a scenario model of the vehicular crash, the scenario model including a predicted level of severity of the imminent vehicular crash; and
in response to the predicted level of severity exceeding a threshold, transmitting, to,…, the scenario model and the external sensor data of the imminent vehicular crash.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: “sensor,” “model,” and “system” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0007] of the specification). Independent claims 1 and 15 are nearly identical to independent claim 8 and, therefore, the same analysis applies to independent claims 1 and 15. Independent claims 1 and 15 include additional elements such a “processor” and “memory device,” respectively, and these additional elements are being used to implement (“apply it”) the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose. Independent claim 15 also includes slightly different limitations that make the use of GPS data to indicate location of the vehicle and that the transmission of the scenario model is a notification.
The dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, 16–22 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 9, and 18 all recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8 in that they describe determining a user associated with a vehicle in the crash and transmitting the scenario and sensor data to that user. Dependent claims 3, 10, and 19 all recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8 in that they describe that the user is emergency services. Dependent claims 4, 11, and 20 all recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8 in that they describe that the user is an insurance company. Dependent claims 5, and 12 both recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8 in that they describe generating multiple models and ranking the models based upon certain criteria. Dependent claims 6, 13, and 22 all recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8 in that they describe storing a model of the vehicular crashes and then updating it. Dependent claims 7 and 14 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8 in that they describe receiving external data from a second vehicle and generating the scenario model based on that data. Dependent claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8 in that it describes what the plurality of sensor data comprises. Dependent claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8 in that it describes determining a location of the crash. Dependent claim 21 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8 in that it describes comparing the sensor data to multiple crash scenarios and generating a model based on the comparison.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. (See, MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following references pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Floyd (U.S. Pat. No. 10,593,109) teaches a system for identifying property damage using a drone fleet to collect damage information autonomously or semi-autonomously; and
Mirza et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,168,882) teaches a method and apparatus for implementing a vehicle exchange platform for identifying vehicle sensor data and providing methods for storage and exchange of the sensor data.
The current invention differs from Floyd as a scenario model is generated based on a vehicle that is not part of the crash. The current invention differs from Mirza as it does not include the generation of a scenario model based on data from a vehicle that is not part of the crash which is part of this invention.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on March 23, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that no abstract idea is recited in the independent claims and the claims are therefore eligible under Step 2A, Prong One of the subject matter eligibility.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). However, the heart of this invention is tied to receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data for an insurance purpose. These claims most definitely recite an abstract idea. Specifically, this is within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions. The use of models to generate a predicted level of severity of the imminent vehicular crash is for the purpose related to insurance and documenting the event for it.
Applicant next argues that “Here, the pending claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 11). However, the claims do not integrate the recited judicial exception noted above into a practical application. No interactive elements are part of the claim set or amended claims. Instead, the system is doing all of the processing and data gathering in the background without any user interaction.
Applicant finally argues that “For at least the reasons explained above, Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims improve AI models and vehicular crash identification and notification systems in an unconventional manner that confines the claims to a particular useful application.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 12). Applicant states this in a conclusory manner without giving any insight as to how the claims encompassing this invention “improve AI models and vehicular crash identification and notification systems in an unconventional manner.” In fact, only generic machine learning models are recited in the amended claims. These are indistinguishable from any other model being used to gather data and draw inferences from the data. Simply gathering data and using a machine learning model to identify correlations between previous sensor data and a level of severity of a vehicular crash is not a technological improvement.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR §1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner
Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696