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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 101 rejection(s) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as a machine -perception operation carried out on image data is not a commercial or legal interaction or agreement in the form of a contract. The Office action identifies no authority treating automated recognition of objects in images as a method of organizing human activity.
The Office asserts that the claims are indeed reflective of organizing human activity in that the claims reflect a claims processing process and are therefore a fundamental economic activity related to insurance. Even if the claims were misidentified as an abstract idea related to a contract, they may still be properly rejected as a fundamental economic practice of insurance. The automated recognition of objects is part of the claims process. Identifying items, determining item categories and percent of damage is the claims adjusting process. Using a machine learning model is the automation of a manual process.
Applicant argues the improvement is detailed by the specification at 0037 and 0053 citing long claim processing timelines for reimbursement and replacement of items and inability to provide controlled access to reimbursement funds.
The Office asserts that reducing claim processing timelimes and controlling access to reimbursement funds are not technical problems but business problems. The claims use generic computer technology to automate these business practices but claiming the improved speed and efficiency associated with computer implementation does not infer patent-eligibility. The performing of object recognition by a model, determining item categories based on the object recognition and programming a payment device to include reimbursement controls are all recited at a high level of generality. None of these limitations is recited with any specificity that signifies any improvement to the functioning of a computer or improvement to other technology or technical field, e.g., how is the object recognition performed beyond object recognition currently known and applied, how are item categories determined beyond basic visual recognition and categorization, and how are payment devices programmed to control reimbursement of funds? The arguments do not provide details from the specification or claims that answer these questions. The training referenced in the specification is also broadly disclosed by the inputs only and not how the model works to perform image recognition.
Applicant also argues the claims provide meaningful limitations per Classen which integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method. Amended claim 1 integrates the results of the object recognition into the concrete configuration of the payment device with per-category spending limits.
The Office asserts that reimbursement or spending controls are a business practice that can be accomplished through various manual verification activities such as the submission of detailed receipts. The present invention merely uses the words “apply it” to this abstract idea.
The applicant argues the claims add specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine and conventional and confine the claims to a particular useful application through a non-conventional and non-routine arrangement of systems and the specific ordered combination of limitations is not well-understood, routine or conventional.
The Office asserts that the applicant does not specify which elements are not well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) but this argument lack specificity regarding which elements are not WURC.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
predicting, using a first trained computing model, one or more item categories for a user, the first trained computing model being trained based on at least one of image data, personal possession data, claim data, or reimbursement data;
generating a plurality of predesignated policy levels for the user based at least on the one or more item categories, as predicted, wherein the plurality of predesignated policy levels cover one or more insured item categories;
receiving a selection by the user of a predesignated policy level from among the plurality of predesignated policy levels;
receiving a claim from the user, the claim comprising one or more images;
performing object recognition on the one or more images, using a second trained computing model, to identify one or more items;
determining, for each insured item category of the one or more insured item categories, a percentage of damage for the one or more items based at least on the object recognition;
generating one or more reimbursement controls for the one or more insured item categories based at least on the claim and the predesignated policy level, comprising setting, for each insured item category, a respective spending limit based at least on the percentage of damage, as determined, and a maximum reimbursement amount associated with the predesignated policy level; and
programming a payment device to include the one or more reimbursement controls for the one or more insured item categories to pay the claim.
The underlined portions of the claim represents certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic activities related to insurance, particularly in processing insurance claims. Similar analyses were applied by the courts in Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. and Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the predicting is amounting to adding the words “apply it”, or the like, to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons.
Claim 2 narrows the abstract idea related to determining the reimbursement controls.
Claim 3 narrows the abstract idea related to generating the predesignated policy levels.
Claim 4 narrows the abstract idea of generating the reimbursement controls by specifying the controls.
Claims 5 and 6 further manages the replacement item, further narrowing the abstract idea.
Claim 7 further limits the payment device but are mere additional elements adding the words “apply it”, or the like, to the abstract idea.
Claims 8-20 are similarly rejected. As a whole and in combination the claims represent an abstract idea with the words “apply it”, or the like.
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 WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights