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 Claims
Claims 1-15 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1-13 are amended.
Claims 14 and 15 are new.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed April 20, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claims recite a trained language model, automatically verifying the user identities, and accident documentation. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the trained language model, the automated verification, and the generation and display of accident documentation are all claimed too broadly and generally to be more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Second, under Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the on-device retrieval using a virtual assistant, as claimed, solves a technical problem. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the retrieval of stored data and the virtual assistance are claimed too broadly and generally to be more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Further, Applicant asserts the limitations of searching a traffic laws and guidance database stored on the user’s device are not generic data handling. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because storing and using databases stored on local devices are still only generic computer functions (i.e., using computers to store and process data).
Similarly, Applicant asserts the accident documentation reflects an improvement in post-accident workflows. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not provide a reflect an improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)).
Third, under Step 2B, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claims do not monopolize the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds the claimed limitations are still recited too broadly and generally to reflect a practical application. Accordingly the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn because cited references do not teach all the newly amended limitations. Please see below for the new rejections of the claims as amended.
Please note, Applicant makes the following assertion which is not persuasive. Applicant asserts Jones and Njie do not teach a legal database stored locally. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Njie teaches a legal information database, ¶[0045] and embodiments where the various modules are stored on the user devices, ¶[0120].
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-15 are directed to a machine.
Independent Claim 1
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising:
detecting an activation trigger from a first user device;
responsive to the activation trigger, automatically verifying a user's identity against identification data stored in a driver/user identification database of the first user device and determining a current location of the first user device;
based on the determined current location, initiating a search of a traffic laws and guidance database stored in a data storage subsystem of the first user device for jurisdiction-specific information about user rights;
displaying a prompt on the first user device to notify one or more emergency contacts and record an interaction;
responsive to receiving a selection of the prompt, initiating an automatic message to be sent to the one or more emergency contacts and initiating a recording of the interaction after providing a recording signal;
and generating, via a virtual assistant using a language model trained on legal data, situation-specific advice about user rights based on the jurisdiction-specific information.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people because these limitations essentially encompass providing legal advice for a client (i.e., verifying the person and the jurisdiction, and providing relevant legal instructions). Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising:
detecting an activation trigger from a first user device;
responsive to the activation trigger, automatically verifying a user's identity against identification data stored in a driver/user identification database of the first user device and determining a current location of the first user device;
based on the determined current location, initiating a search of a traffic laws and guidance database stored in a data storage subsystem of the first user device for jurisdiction-specific information about user rights;
displaying a prompt on the first user device to notify one or more emergency contacts and record an interaction;
responsive to receiving a selection of the prompt, initiating an automatic message to be sent to the one or more emergency contacts and initiating a recording of the interaction after providing a recording signal;
and generating, via a virtual assistant using a language model trained on legal data, situation-specific advice about user rights based on the jurisdiction-specific information.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the non-transitory computer medium, the user device, and performing steps automatically, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of detecting an activation trigger, storing the various data in a database, determining a current location, displaying prompts to the user, receiving the selection, initiating the message and recording the interaction, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving, displaying and sending data (i.e. receiving user input, displaying user interface elements, and recording and sending data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of a virtual assistant with a trained language model, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the trained language model is claimed too broadly and generally to be more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility 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).
Independent claim 1 does 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, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 9
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 9 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising:
detecting an activation trigger from a first user device;
responsive to the activation trigger, automatically verifying a user's identity against identification data stored in a driver/user identification database of the first user device and determining a current location of the first user device;
displaying a prompt on the first user device to notify one or more emergency contacts;
responsive to receiving a selection of the prompt, initiating an automatic message to be sent to the one or more emergency contacts;
generating, via a virtual assistant accessing guidance data stored in a data storage subsystem of the first user device, step-by-step guidance on next steps based on the determined current location; and
generating and displaying one or more state-specific accident documentation forms based on the determined current location, and enabling export of completed forms to an insurance application.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people because these limitations essentially encompass providing legal advice for a client (i.e., verifying the person and the jurisdiction, and providing relevant legal instructions and insurance documents). Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 9 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising:
detecting an activation trigger from a first user device;
responsive to the activation trigger, automatically verifying a user's identity against identification data stored in a driver/user identification database of the first user device and determining a current location of the first user device;
displaying a prompt on the first user device to notify one or more emergency contacts;
responsive to receiving a selection of the prompt, initiating an automatic message to be sent to the one or more emergency contacts;
generating, via a virtual assistant accessing guidance data stored in a data storage subsystem of the first user device, step-by-step guidance on next steps based on the determined current location; and
generating and displaying one or more state-specific accident documentation forms based on the determined current location, and enabling export of completed forms to an insurance application.
These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the non-transitory computer medium, the user device, and performing steps automatically, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of detecting an activation trigger, storing the various data in a database, determining a current location, displaying prompts to the user, receiving the selection, initiating the message, accessing guidance data, and displaying and exporting the insurance forms, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving, displaying and sending data (i.e. receiving user input, displaying user interface elements, and recording and sending data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of a virtual assistant, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the virtual assistant is claimed too broadly and generally to be more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility 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).
Independent claim 9 does 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, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2 and 10 recite the additional elements of sending messages to emergency contacts. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 3, 4, 11 and 12 recite the additional elements of providing access to a virtual assistant and generating information via the virtual assistant. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., AI chatbots) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of recording and storing the encounter. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving and storing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of exporting or deleting. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending or removing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of using natural language processing. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., AI chatbots using natural language processing) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because updating advice is a part of providing legal instructions.
Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of receiving audio data. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 13-15 recites the additional elements of generating forms in a current jurisdiction, displaying prompts and sending insurance information. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of displaying data (i.e., displaying forms prompts), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US Pat. No. 9,699,401, herein referred to as “Jones” in view of Njie, US Pub. No. 2025/0014129, herein referred to as “Njie”, further in view of Gabel, US Pub. No. 2015/0172894, herein referred to as “Gabel”.
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches:
detecting an activation trigger from a first user device (user launches the app, e.g., Col. 8, ll. 55-65);
responsive to the activation trigger, automatically verifying a user's identity against identification data stored in a driver/user identification database and determining a current location of the first user device (records time, date and location, and performs voice and facial recognition, Col. 2, ll. 42-60, Col. 8, ll. 55-6; see also Col. 6, ll. 41-46 discussing securing data with facial and voice recognition);
displaying a prompt on the first user device to notify one or more emergency contacts and record an interaction (provides panic button to send alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34, and records the encounter, Col. 4, ll. 27-50, Col. 5, ll. 23-40);
responsive to receiving a selection of the prompt, initiating an automatic message to be sent to the one or more emergency contacts and initiating a recording of the interaction after providing a recording signal (provides panic button to send alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34, and records the encounter, Col. 4, ll. 27-50, Col. 5, ll. 23-40).
However Jones does not teach but Njie does teach:
A non-transitory computer medium having executable code stored thereon, that when executed, cause a data processing system to perform operations comprising (non-transitory computer readable medium and instructions, e.g., ¶¶[0113], [0124]):
based on the determined current location, initiating a search of a traffic laws and guidance database stored in a data storage subsystem of the first user device for jurisdiction-specific information about user rights (obtains jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶[107] and provides jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶¶[0059], [0110]; see also Fig. 7 summarizing process; and ¶[0045] discussing legal information database, and ¶[0120] noting modules are stored on the user devices).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
However the combination of Jones and Njie does not teach but Gabel does teach:
verifying a user's identity against identification data identification data stored in a driver/user identification database of the first user device (face recognition sensors are on user device, ¶[0098], and process described performed on the user terminal, ¶[0099])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system with legal assistance of Jones and Njie with the local process of Gabel because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users in Jones and Njie may not always have access to remote systems (e.g., where their smartphones do not have reception) and accordingly would have modified the combination of Jones and Njie to store certain useful data locally, e.g., as in Gabel.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Jones further teaches:
initiating an automatic message sent to the one or more emergency contacts (sends alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Njie further teaches:
during the recording, providing chat access, via typing or audio, to the virtual assistant (uses natural language processing, ¶[0040] to provide real-time direct communication, ¶[0042], when providing legal advice, ¶[0041]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and Njie further teaches:
generating, via the virtual assistant, jurisdiction-specific information about user rights through text or audio responses during a law enforcement encounter (obtains jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶[107] and provides jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶¶[0059], [0110]; see also Fig. 7 summarizing process, and Fig. 4 showing interface).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Jones further teaches:
creating and storing an audio-visual record of a law enforcement encounter (securely stores and processes real-time recordings, Col. 2, ll. 11-43, Col. 3, ll. 17-29).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Jones further teaches:
enabling a user to export or delete the recording after a law enforcement encounter (captured data can be uploaded or streamed, Col. 2, ll. 11-43; see also Col. 6, ll. 26-40 discussing deletion process).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Njie further teaches:
using natural language processing and natural language understanding to provide a response to a user inquiry (uses natural language processing, ¶[0040] to provide real-time direct communication, ¶[0042], when providing legal advice, ¶[0041]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Njie further teaches:
continuously updating the situation-specific advice based on audio data captured during the recording of the interaction (during interaction system dynamically updates the presented information based on audio data, ¶¶[0025], [0040]-[0041]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 9, Jones teaches:
detecting an activation trigger from a first user device (user launches the app, e.g., Col. 8, ll. 55-65);
responsive to the activation trigger, automatically verifying a user's identity against identification data stored in a driver/user identification database and
displaying a prompt on the first user device to notify one or more emergency contacts (provides panic button to send alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34);
However Jones does not teach but Njie does teach:
generating, via a virtual assistant accessing guidance data stored in a data storage subsystem of the first user device, step-by-step guidance on next steps based on the determined current location (obtains jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶[107] and provides jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶¶[0059], [0110]; see also Fig. 7 summarizing process, Fig. 4 showing interface; and ¶¶[0025], [0040]-[0041] discussing dynamically updating the presented information).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
However the combination of Jones and Njie does not teach but Gabel does teach:
verifying a user's identity against identification data stored in a driver/user identification database of the first user device (face recognition sensors are on user device, ¶[0098], and process described performed on the user terminal, ¶[0099]);
and generating and displaying one or more state-specific accident documentation forms based on the determined current location, and enabling export of completed forms to an insurance application (user interface for completing accident report and system collects and enters information for agent to report accident, ¶[0061] and Fig. 4B; see also e.g., ¶[0050] discussing providing location specific services).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system with legal assistance of Jones and Njie with the local process and insurance forms of Gabel because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users in Jones and Njie may not always have access to remote systems (e.g., where their smartphones do not have reception) and accordingly would have modified the combination of Jones and Njie to store certain useful data locally and provide relevant forms, e.g., as in Gabel.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Jones further teaches:
initiating an automatic message sent to the one or more emergency contacts (sends alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Njie further teaches:
providing chat access, via typing or audio, to the virtual assistant (uses natural language processing, ¶[0040] to provide real-time direct communication, ¶[0042], when providing legal advice, ¶[0041]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and Njie further teaches:
generating, via the virtual assistant, step-by- step guidance on next steps rendered as text-based or audio-based output on the first user device (obtains jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶[107] and provides jurisdiction-specific legal information, ¶¶[0059], [0110]; see also Fig. 7 summarizing process, and Fig. 4 showing interface).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system of Jones with the legal assistance of Njie because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users Jones would likely not only be interested in recording the encounter but would also be interested in legal advice and accordingly would have modified Jones to provide legal advice, e.g., as taught by Njie.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Gabel further teaches:
generating one or more accident specific forms in a current jurisdiction associated with an accident (user interface for completing accident report and system collects and enters information for agent to report accident, ¶[0061] and Fig. 4B; see also e.g., ¶[0050] discussing providing location specific services).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system with legal assistance of Jones and Njie with the local process and insurance forms of Gabel because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users in Jones and Njie may not always have access to remote systems (e.g., where their smartphones do not have reception) and accordingly would have modified the combination of Jones and Njie to store certain useful data locally and provide relevant forms, e.g., as in Gabel.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Jones further teaches:
conducting an evaluation including displaying a prompt asking whether the user feels safe to resume travel (provides panic button to send alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34. Please note, Examiner finds that the limitations specifying the prompt “asking whether the user feels safe to resume travel” does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the wording being displayed is only intended for the human reader does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling the what data is being displayed does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05);
and responsive to receiving an indication that the user does not feel safe, displaying options to contact an emergency contact or emergency services (provides panic button to send alert that notifies emergency contact, Col. 4, ll. 4-34).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jones, Njie and Gabel teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Gabel further teaches:
generating an email (email, ¶[0089])
including an insurance policy number, user name, and the completed accident documentation form for transmission to an insurance company (policy number, user’s name, e.g., ¶[0042], and accident form, ¶[0061] and Fig. 10B).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the monitoring system with legal assistance of Jones and Njie with the local process of Gabel because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users in Jones and Njie may not always have access to remote systems (e.g., where their smartphones do not have reception) and accordingly would have modified the combination of Jones and Njie to store certain useful data locally, e.g., as in Gabel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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 Uber can be reached at (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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights