DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant filed a response dated 7/31/2026 in which claims 1, 6-8, 11-19, 23-24, 26-29, 31, and 34-45 are pending in the application.
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, 6-8, 11-19, 23-24, 26-29, 31, and 34-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of analyzing a financial service product pricing process without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 24.
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., receiving, via an electronic input, data from a plurality of sources in a computer system, the plurality of sources including at least an actuarial system; generating, via the waterfall tool comprising a computer processor, a waterfall display that electronically displays revenues cascading down from a base list price to an invoice price to a pocket price to illustrate revenue leaks, the waterfall tool being updated at one or more predetermined time intervals, the step of generating the waterfall display including the steps of: formatting the received data, wherein the formatted comprises one or more of converting actuarial data into time identifications comprising months and quarters and one or more product names; measuring, using the computer processor, predetermined pricing metrics using the formatted data, the measuring including a measure of underwriting, the measure of underwriting including measuring an underwriting error rate, the measuring also including a measure of a premium leakage, the premium leakage constituted by a reclassification of an insured person’s risk class, and a measure of at least one discount, the measure of the at least one discount includes measuring a trend of usage percentage, and wherein the predetermined pricing metrics are defined at a policy level, determining, using the computer processor, a present value of the predetermined pricing metrics, and graphing, using the computer processor, the present value of each of the predetermined pricing metrics, calculating, using the computer processor based on the generated waterfall display, a differential between the present value of the predetermined pricing metrics, at least a plurality of differentials being determined, identifying, using the computer processor, each of the plurality of differentials as representing a respective revenue leak, each of the plurality of differentials associated with at least one price structure element, comparing, using the computer processor, each of the plurality of differentials to the at least one known price structure element, determining, using the computer processor, that a corresponding trigger is attained based on the comparing, electronically outputting, using an interactive display, the results of the comparing and further outputting a plurality of buckets illustrating one or more revenue leaks, reviewing a pricing process using the generated waterfall, identifying one or more opportunities to decrease revenue leaks using the waterfall generated by using a waterfall worksheet to calculate the predetermined pricing metrics and produce a waterfall bar graph that includes the values for a market price, a market gap, a list price, an underwriting, a discount amount, a rider amount, a premium, a commission amount, a bonus amount or any combination thereof; implementing an action plan based on the results of the comparing and the plurality of buckets illustrating one or more revenue leaks and the one or more opportunities to decrease revenue leaks, and the step of measuring the predetermined pricing metrics includes measuring at least one selected from the group comprising a plurality of incentives, a plurality of commissions, a plurality of fees, an underwriting gap and a market gap, wherein the plurality of incentives and the plurality of commissions each include measuring at least one of a total payout rate in relation to at least one payout rate of a competitor and a trend of usage percentage and the plurality of fees includes measuring at least one of a trend of usage percentage by type and a trend in an average premium amount in relation to type; wherein measuring the market gap include measuring at least one of a competitive rate, a ranking in relation to major competitors, and a percentage variance from a lowest price, and wherein the step of implementing the action plan includes evaluating a position of all market gap metrics. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of analyzing a financial service product pricing process, which may correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (a person following a set of instructions; certain activity between a person and a computer; October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, page 5).
The limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), determining, using the computer processor, a present value of the predetermined pricing metrics, and calculating, using the computer processor based on the generated waterfall display, a differential between the present value of the predetermined pricing metrics, at least a plurality of differentials being determined recite an abstract idea as these limitations recite mathematical calculations. The additional elements of an actuarial system, a computer processor, a waterfall tool, and a display limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of an actuarial system, a computer processor, a waterfall tool, and a display result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of an actuarial system, a computer processor, a waterfall tool, and a display are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprise a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation (with the exception of italicized limitations), receiving, via an electronic input, data from a plurality of sources in a computer system; measuring, using the computer processor, predetermined pricing metrics using the received data amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of an actuarial system, a computer processor, a waterfall tool, and a display are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification describes the computer to be a generic computer performing its generic computer functions and the courts decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent-eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claim 24 and hence the claim 24 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 6-8, 11-19, 23, 26-29, 31, and 34-45 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 24 and hence corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any 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 both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 6-8, 11-19, 23, 26-29, 31, and 34-45 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 6-8, 11-19, 23-24, 26-29, 31, and 34-45 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
Argument A.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 11-19, 22-24, 26-29, 31, and 34-45 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the Office’s characterization of Applicant’s prior arguments is incorrect. The response filed April 14, 2026 presented arguments directed to the element “the waterfall tool being updated at one or more predetermined time intervals,” which was newly added by that very response and had never previously been of record-an argument directed to newly added claim language cannot logically be a summary of earlier prosecution.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Office action dated addressed these arguments in the previous office action dated 5/1/2026 on pages 6-7.
Argument B.
Applicant states that the claim 1 must be evaluated as an ordered combination, not by dissecting individual elements. The Office considers only “actuarial system, a computer processor, a waterfall tool, and a display” in isolation and never addresses the specific ordered combination recited by claim 1, in which data received from a plurality of independent source systems is formatted into standardized time identifications and product names, used to generate a waterfall display cascading revenues from a base list price to an invoice price to a pocket price, analyzed to calculate a plurality of differentials each identified as a respective revenue leak associated with at least one price structure element, compared against triggers, and used to automatically trigger a control plan. The rejection is deficient to address this combination.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, the additional elements are considered as an ordered combination to determine if the claim is directed to an abstract idea. It was determined that the additional elements simply apply the abstract idea without transforming the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. This is supported by the fact that the additional elements do not provide any technical improvement or provide a technical solution to a technical problem under Step 2A, Prong 2. Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not present an inventive concept and thus the additional elements do not amount to add significantly more. When the claim limitations are considered as an ordered combination, it does not provide any technical improvement or an inventive concept. Thus, the claim as a whole when considered as an ordered combination is directed to an abstract idea.
Argument C.
Applicant states that the office improperly evaluates the “updated at one or more predetermined time intervals” element in isolation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that when the updated feature of the claimed invention is considered along with remaining limitations, it does not transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. This is supported by the fact that the updating feature and the additional elements do not provide any technical improvement or provide a technical solution to a technical problem under Step 2A, Prong 2. Under Step 2B, the updating feature and the additional elements do not present an inventive concept and thus the updating feature does not amount to add significantly more. When the updating feature and the remaining limitations are considered as an ordered combination, it does not provide any technical improvement or an inventive concept. Thus, the claim as a whole when considered as an ordered limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
Argument D.
Applicant states that claim 1’s formatting element is materially the same standardization found eligible in Example 42.
Examiner notes that in the claimed invention converting actuarial data into time identifications comprising months and quarters and one or more product names is of different scope than what is present in Example 42. In Example 42, the conversion results in specific improvement over prior art system by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. This allowed the group of healthcare providers to readily adapt their own medical diagnostic and treatment strategy in accordance with other providers’ actions. The claim in Example 42 thus identified the technical problem and provided a technical solution. This represents a technical improvement. This type of technical improvement is not present in the conversion step of the claimed invention and thus these arguments are not persuasive.
Argument E.
Applicant states that the Office’s Step 2B “well-understood, routine, conventional” finding is unsupported, and the absence of any prior-art rejection confirms the claimed combination is not conventional.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under Step 2A, Prong 2, the office action identifies the limitation (with the exception of italicized limitations), receiving, via an electronic input, data from a plurality of sources in a computer system; measuring, using the computer processor, predetermined pricing metrics using the received data amounts to be a mere data gathering step and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The office action further analyzes this limitation under Step 2B to determine if it amounts to add significantly more. The limitation that is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification describes the computer to be a generic computer performing its generic computer functions and the courts decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Examiner notes that lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights