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
The following is in to the amendments and arguments filed 6/25/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The amendments to the Abstract have overcome the prior Objections.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/25/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Double Patenting
Applicants’ amendments and arguments have overcome the prior rejection under Double Patenting. The rejection will be reconsidered if the claims are further amended.
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. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, product and process. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 19 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 10.
The claims recite the steps of method …comprising: training, using a corpus of historical claim data, …on injury data to predict recovery times for injuries, the injury data identifying (i) injury type and injury severity resulting from a corresponding claim event, (ii) claimant-specific health factors for a plurality of claims, (iii) healing progress information for injured claimants, (iv) recovery times for claimants, and
(v) settlement offers and settlement data for individual claims; identifying a claim event involving an injury to a user; executing the … model to predict a recovery timeline for the user, and to generate a check-in strategy according to the timeline to assist the user in recovering from the injury, verify recovery information provided by the user, and detect fraud; wherein generating the check-in strategy includes determining a communication channel, a cadence and content; implementing the check-in strategy by initiating a … calls to the user …in accordance with the recovery timeline, to engage the user and to learn information about a recovery schedule of the user …generating real-time conversation flow with the user that is responsive to vocal outputs of the user; during the real-time conversation-flow, determining an engagement level of the user, based on an interaction of the user with a user interface …of the user, the interaction of the user including a display or view time of the user with respect to at least a portion of the user interface wherein determining the engagement level includes computing, in real time during the one or more …calls, a confidence value corresponding to a probability that the user will hang up the …call or exit …within a threshold time period; the user, the voice… being customized for multiple aspects of speech, including tonality and speech speed determining whether the recovery schedule predicted for the user diverges from the predicted recovery timeline; and updating one or more of the communication channel, cadence or content for checking in with the user based on the determination that the recovery schedule has diverged from the predicted recovery timeline.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim as a whole recites the series of steps instructing how to assist a user’s recovery from an injury by adjusting voice aspects (tone, speed, volume) based on user engagement, which is a fundamental economic practice (insurance)commercial and legal interaction (business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Thus, the claim falls within the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to assist a user recovery from an injury by adjusting voice aspects in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (generic computer limitations of performed on a processor, training a machine learning model, engine, display, interface, In claim 10, additionally non transitory computer readable medium; additionally in claim 1, processors, memory, computing system ) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing insurance/business relations process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A prong 2, the claim describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to assist a user recovery from an injury by adjusting voice aspects in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed separately and as a whole, the additional claim elements (generic computer limitations of performed on a processor, training a machine learning model, engine, display, interface, In claim 10, additionally non transitory computer readable medium; additionally in claim 1, processors, memory, computing system ) do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claims, 2-9, 11-18 and 20, further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 19 (detecting fraud, tuning the voice, determining severity and recovery time, personal information and further details to implementing the check in strategy for example). The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered as a whole, individually and as an ordered combination. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims 6-7 and 15-16 filed on 6/25/2026 should have been submitted canceling the claims and presenting new claims reciting the new limitations. In the spirit of compact prosecution, Examiner has examined the amended claims; however, all future correspondence must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
35 USC 101
Regarding applicant’s argument the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the “the specification expressly identifies a technical solution” rem 17 and voice-AI engine and a predictive machine learning model rem 18., by customizing the voice-AI speech being used. As a result, better information can be obtained, which in turn can automate a previously manual check-in strategy and reduce usage of computational resources. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to a business problem of improving customer service in insurance claims (see original specification para 3 and Para 41, this is a technical solution to a business problem and does not improve Vice AI, machine learning or the functioning of the computer).
Regarding the additional elements, specifically applicant’s interpretation of “additional elements,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the MPEP 2106.05a covers improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field including “In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014).” Additional elements are limitations not included in the judicial exception (abstract idea, per se).
Further, in MPEP 2106(f), REVISED, "in Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity. Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential)."
The arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record. Applicant need provide facts that back up the position.
With regards to applicant’s arguments with regards to the relation of the instant to a PTAB decision, PTAB decisions are case specific and cannot be used to create the basis for an argument unless the decision is precedential.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the features provided (rem 19) are additional elements because “they cannot practically be performed in the human mind” Examiner knows of no requirement nor definition of additional elements as such. Examiner respectfully notes this may be an argument directed to the grouping of abstract idea however the Mental processing” grouping was not applied; the argument is moot.
With regards to applicant’s comparison with Recentive analytics and Example 39, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s response fails to link the legal concepts to the facts of the application under examination.
Arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record. Applicant need provide facts that back up the position.
Regarding applicant’s additional arguments with respect to 2A prong 2 and step 2b, by applicant’s own admission, the problem being solved is a business problem and not a technical problem. A technical solution to a Business problem improves an abstract idea and is not eligible. The application says claims handling, especially injury claims, is slow, manual, and frustrating for both policyholders and providers [0041]. Users often start the process but do not complete it, and claims teams need better ways to gather accurate recovery information and keep users engaged [0053]-[0060]. It also identifies a need to monitor recovery progress over time and detect inconsistent or potentially fraudulent injury reporting [0085]-[0088], [0173]. More broadly, the disclosure aims to streamline claim processing while reducing communication and administrative burden [0028], [0041].
Regrading 35 USC 101 and the additional elements in claims 6-7 and 15-16, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional element argued are in limitations directed to results and do not include the technical implementation details.
Thus, because the Specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the Specification, as quoted above.
With regards to applicant’s arguments directed to an improvement in the technological solution, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claimed invention is a computer technology solution to a business problem (by applicant’s own admission, see originally filed specification para 41 “technical solution of optimizing information gathering processes, particularly for insurance claims and claim processing for insurance policy providers, in furtherance of a practical application of reducing time from an initial incident to the final step in the claim process (e.g., a settlement or payout)”). Further, the courts recently clarified that a relevant inquiry at step one is "to ask whether the claims are ·directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-2044, slip op. at *11 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). It was contrasted that claims "directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer" with claims "simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices," or claims reciting "use of an abstract mathematical formula on any general purpose computer," or "a purely conventional computer implementation of a mathematical formula," or "generalized steps to be per¬ formed on a computer using conventional computer activity." Id . at *16-17. The claims are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are 'directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.
In addition, to show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added limitations as not addressed previously, the limitations have been considered in the above 35 USC 101 rejection analysis (rem 22).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure can be found on the attached PTO-892. Shah et al. disclose predictive health plan optimization for users. Wertzberger discloses real-time electronic medical records. McHugh et al. disclose facilitating the reporting of an injury claim to an insurance company. Soll et al. disclose enhanced medical treatment system. Oh discloses a customized care service using voice AI. Zhang, Daze, Gu and Jung all disclose various AI system for human machine interfaces and adjustments based on mood/behavior recognition of user.
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 Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights