DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on July 24, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejections and a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art are stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. 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 a method/device for extracting the image data corresponding to the damaged area of the vehicle, based on the one or more characteristics and the image data, generating a response, and causing the response to be displayed to the user, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 1 is directed to a device (apparatus).
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A mobile computing device, comprising:
a wireless network interface;
a camera;
a processor;
a memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the mobile computing device to:
determine one or more image instructions, each image instruction indicating one or more particular sections of a vehicle of which at least one image should be captured;
cause the one or more image instructions to be displayed to a user;
receive one or more first images captured by the user and corresponding to the one or more particular sections of the vehicle;
determine a minimum criteria associated with received images;
analyze the one or more first images;
based on a determination that at least one first image of the one or more first images does not meet the determined minimum criteria, cause a request for one or more additional images to be displayed to the user;
receive one or more second images captured by the user and corresponding to the request for one or more additional images;
analyze the one or more second images;
based on a determination that one or more third images from the one or more first images and/or the one or more second images meet the determined minimum criteria, generate one or more edge-enhanced images corresponding to the one or more third images;
identify one or more characteristics of the one or more edge-enhanced images indicative of damage to the vehicle;
determine, by comparing the one or more edge-enhanced images to one or more reference images, image data corresponding to a damaged area of the vehicle;
extract the image data corresponding to the damaged area of the vehicle;
based on the one or more characteristics and the image data, generate a response; and
cause the response to be displayed to the user” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice such as processing insurance claims as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
The steps of “extract the image data corresponding to the damaged area of the vehicle; based on the one or more characteristics and the image data, generate a response; and cause the response to be displayed to the user” is a fundamental economic practice such as processing insurance claims (See Specification at least paragraphs [0003], [0022], [0038] – [0049], [0072]). The claims are interpreted in light of the specification, See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also these steps considered collectively is fulfilling insurance agreements. Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
That is, other than, a mobile computing device, comprising: a wireless network interface; a camera; a processor; a memory storing executable instructions, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a mobile computing device, comprising: a wireless network interface; a camera; a processor; a memory storing executable instructions all the steps. A plain reading of the Specification reveals that the mobile computing device may be a generic mobile computing device such as a mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA) etc. suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The components of the mobile computing device such as a wireless network interface, a camera, a processor, and a memory storing executable instructions are generic computer components suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Hence, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim 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, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claims 9 and 17 are also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claims 2, 10 and 18, the steps “wherein:
causing the one or more image instructions to be displayed to the user comprises transmitting the one or more image instructions to a second mobile computing device for display to the user;
causing the request for the one or more additional images to be displayed to the user comprises transmitting the request for the one or more additional images to the second mobile computing device for display to the user; and
causing the response to be displayed to the user comprises transmitting the response to the second mobile computing device for display to the user” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process. The additional element of a second mobile computing device is a generic mobile computing device such as a mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA) etc. suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The additional element of the second mobile computing device, performs a traditional function recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In claims 3, 11 and 19, the steps “wherein the one or more first images and the one or more second images are captured by the user using a second mobile computing device, and wherein the one or more first images and the one or more second images are transmitted, by the second mobile computing device, to the mobile computing device” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 4 and 12, the steps “wherein, when the mobile computing device is unable to identify the one or more characteristics indicative of damage in a particular edge-enhanced image, the response comprises an indication that another image of a particular section of the vehicle corresponding to the particular edge-enhanced image should be captured” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps further describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 5, 13 and 20, the step “wherein the response comprises a damage estimate” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step further describe the response used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 6 and 14, the steps “wherein the response comprises an acceptability of at least one of the one or more first images and/or the one or more second images” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step further describe the response used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 7 and 15, the steps “wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the mobile computing device to determine whether the one or more edge-enhanced images meet a predefined set of criteria” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps further describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 8 and 16, the step “wherein the predefined set of criteria includes a criterion related to blurriness” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step further describe the predefined set of criteria used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together 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. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-20 would be allowable, over prior art, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
The closest prior art of record, (Dorai, et al. US Pub. 2005/0251427 A1, and DeBello et al. US Pub. 2013/0297353 A1)), considered individually or in combination, fail to teach the steps of “based on a determination that at least one first image of the one or more first images does not meet the determined minimum criteria, cause a request for one or more additional images to be displayed to the user; …….. based on a determination that one or more third images from the one or more first images and/or the one or more second images meet the determined minimum criteria, generate one or more edge-enhanced images corresponding to the one or more third images; identify one or more characteristics of the one or more edge-enhanced images indicative of damage to the vehicle; determine, by comparing the one or more edge-enhanced images to one or more reference images, image data corresponding to a damaged area of the vehicle”. Page 3 of 13Appl. No.: 14/331,106For these reasons claims 1, 8 and 15 are deemed allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are allowable over prior art by virtue of dependency on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Thurber; David et al. (US Pub. 2023/0177616 A1) discloses a system and method for processing an insurance claim for damage to a vehicle, home, or other property. Image data of the damaged property may be examined, with an insured's permission or affirmative consent, by a processor using a machine learning technology to determine the amount of damage; determine a repair or replacement cost; generate a proposed insurance claim and initiate processing the insurance claim; and perform additional actions relevant to handling the insurance claim or assisting the claimant. The additional actions may include estimating a repair or replacement cost and time; identifying a repair service; determining an availability of repair parts and appointments; identifying one or more salvage services; identifying settlement options; and identifying temporary replacement property (e.g., rental vehicles or hotel rooms). The processor may receive and account for GPS location of the damaged property or the insured's mobile device, and/or the forecasted weather for that location.
(b) Lambert; Holly et al. (US Pub. 2021/0350470 A1) discloses a system and computer-implemented method for processing image data of a vehicle to identify one or more damaged parts includes receiving the image data of the vehicle from a policyholder. The image data is processed to determine whether the image data includes images of one or more damaged parts of the vehicle. One or more damaged parts are identified. A parts database is used to receive data corresponding to the identified one or more damaged parts. A parts list is generated including the identified one or more damaged parts and the data corresponding to the identified one or more damaged parts.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. 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 number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights