DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 2-21 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 2 and 21 are directed to a method. Claim 14 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention under step 1.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) under step 2.
Step 2A, Prong One: For example, claim 1 recites the following abstract idea absent the bolded elements.
Claim 2 recites:
utilizing a 3D scanner to generate a point cloud representative of a property;
isolating one or more point clusters from the point cloud representative of the property;
determining which points in each of the one or more point clusters represents potential damage to one or more objects associated with the property by comparing each of the one or more point clusters to a model point cloud;
identifying a set of outlier points in one or more of the one or more point clusters based on the comparison;
mapping the identified set of outlier points to one or more different areas of the property that are damaged; and
generating and displaying a report that indicates the one or more different areas of the property that are damaged.
Claim 3 recites wherein each of the one or more point clusters corresponds to a detectable object on a surface of the property.
Claim 4 recites wherein the detectable object is a roof shing, a brick, a tile, a panel, or a wood plank.
Claim 5 recites wherein the model point cloud corresponds to an undamaged object.
Claim 6 recites wherein the model point cloud corresponding to the undamaged object includes characteristics consistent with normal wear and tear.
Claim 7 recites: wherein determining which points in each of the one or more point clusters represents potential damage to one or more objects associated with the property includes superimposing a first point cluster of the one or more point clusters on the model point cloud.
Claim 8 recites: comprising determining which of the identified set of outlier points represent a false positive.
Claim 9 recites: comprising identifying an extent or severity of damage associated with each of the one or more different areas of the property that are damaged.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the 3D scanner utilizes time-of-flight techniques or triangulation techniques.
Claim 11 recites: wherein the report includes information pertaining to some or all of the one or more different areas of the property that are damaged.
Claim 12 recites: wherein the report includes textual or graphical representations of the one or more different areas of the property that are damaged.
Claim 13 recites: wherein a first area of the one or more different areas of the property that are damaged include two or more detectable objects.
Claim 14 recites: A system, comprising:
a processor configured to:
utilize a 3D scanner to generate a point cloud representative of a property;
isolate one or more point clusters from the point cloud representative of the property;
determine which points in each of the one or more point clusters represents potential damage to one or more objects associated with the property by comparing each of the one or more point clusters to a model point cloud;
identify a set of outlier points in one or more of the one or more point clusters based on the comparison;
map the identified set of outlier points to one or more different areas of the property that are damaged; and
generate and display a report that indicates the one or more different areas of the property that are damaged; and
a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions.
Claim 15 recites: wherein each of the one or more point clusters corresponds to a detectable object on a surface of the property.
Claim 16 recites: wherein the detectable object is a roof shing, a brick, a tile, a panel, or a wood plank.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the model point cloud corresponds to an undamaged object.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the model point cloud corresponding to the undamaged object includes characteristics consistent with normal wear and tear.
Claim 19 recites: wherein to determine which points in each of the one or more point clusters represents potential damage to one or more objects associated with the property, the processor is configured to superimpose a first point cluster of the one or more point clusters on the model point cloud.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the processor is further configured to determine which of the identified set of outlier points represent a false positive.
Claim 21 recites: A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:
utilizing a 3D scanner to generate a point cloud representative of a property;
isolating one or more point clusters from the point cloud representative of the property;
determining which points in each of the one or more point clusters represents potential damage to one or more objects associated with the property by comparing each of the one or more point clusters to a model point cloud;
identifying a set of outlier points in one or more of the one or more point clusters based on the comparison;
mapping the identified set of outlier points to one or more different areas of the property that are damaged; and
generating and displaying a report that indicates the one or more different areas of the property that are damaged.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), because they amount to limitations specifying functions of a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The BRI of these limitations describes functions for estimating damages to objects in a property.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
Claims 2-13 and 21 do not recite any additional elements.
As per claims 14-20, the claimed limitations performing steps of causing one or more processors to access a memory and the processors implementing a damage assessment module for finally creating or generating a report on damage object merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea– see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation and/or configuration of the claimed one or more processors with memories are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components along with a scanner potentially using networks to communicate scanned data between systems (See figures 1 and 2 of the applicant’s drawings) which are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer.
Performing steps by one or more computer processors or hardware merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
While the claims do not specify any particular manner of “utilize” or “utilizing”, “determine” or “determining”, “identify” or “identifying”, “map” or “mapping”, and “generate” or “generating”, the breadth of the limitations reasonably includes identifying data on an object which can be done using the human mind and generating a report which can be done based on the identifying function.
Reciting the "one or more processors" is understood to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106.05(b)(I), is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one computer or processor to:
“utilize a 3D scanner to generate a point cloud representative of a property;
isolate one or more point clusters from the point cloud representative of the property;
determine which points in each of the one or more point clusters represents potential damage to one or more objects associated with the property by comparing each of the one or more point clusters to a model point cloud;
identify a set of outlier points in one or more of the one or more point clusters based on the comparison;
map the identified set of outlier points to one or more different areas of the property that are damaged; and
generate and display a report that indicates the one or more different areas of the property that are damaged”.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence for estimating damage to objects and generating a damage report that indicates the one or more different areas of the property that are damaged.
Performance of these steps technologically does present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Functions of implementing “utilize” or “utilizing”, “determine” or “determining”, “identify” or “identifying”, “map” or “mapping”, and “generate” or “generating” have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Independent claim 14 recites the same limitations as claim 1 but instead claims a system using one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories for performing similar functions. The same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 14.
Positively reciting the one or more computer processors and memories storing software instructions to provide to the processor, does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
Positively reciting the logic stored in memory which when executed by a processor causes performance of the functions also does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions from a scanned data using a scanner performing its purpose. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for “utilize” or “utilizing”, “determine” or “determining”, “identify” or “identifying”, “map” or “mapping”, and “generate” or “generating”, and performing routine and conventional functions.
These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
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.
The claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components performing generic functions without an inventive concept as they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or renders the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 2-21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11/610,269. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '269 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '269 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '269 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness -type as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,832,334. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '334 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '334 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '334 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness -type double as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,146. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '146 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '146 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '146 patent.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“isolating one or more point clusters from the point cloud representative of the property, determining which points in each of the one or more point clusters represents potential damage to one or more objects associated with the property by comparing each of the one or more point clusters to a model point cloud, identifying a set of outlier points in one or more of the one or more point clusters based on the comparison, and mapping the identified set of outlier points to one or more different areas of the property that are damaged” as recited in independent claim 2 and as similarly recited in independent claims 14 and 21.
Taliwal et al. (US Pub. No. 20170293894 A1) disclose a system and method for automatically estimating a repair cost for a vehicle. The method includes: receiving, at a server computing device over an electronic network, one or more images of a damaged vehicle from a client computing device; performing image processing operations on each of the one or more images to detect external damage to a first set of parts of the vehicle; inferring internal damage to a second set of parts of the vehicle based on the detected external damage; and, calculating an estimated repair cost for the vehicle based on the detected external damage and inferred internal damage based on accessing a parts database that includes repair and labor costs for each part in the first and second sets of parts.
Lim et al (US Pub. No. 20200273247 A1) disclose a learning-based three-dimensional (3D) model creation apparatus and method. A method for operating a learning-based 3D model creation apparatus includes generating multi-view feature images using supervised learning, creating a three-dimensional (3D) mesh model using a point cloud corresponding to the multi- view feature images and a feature image representing internal shape information, generating a texture map by projecting the 3D mesh model into three viewpoint images that are input, and creating a 3D model using the texture map.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights