Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on July 2, 2026, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, which is illustrative of all independent claims and analyzed as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method for purchasing annuity contract. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the method for purchasing annuity contract comprising the following limitations: storing investment and pricing data…, receiving as input of a minimum retirement income amount…wherein the minimum retirement income amount for the user comprises periodic income payments for the remainder of the user’s life, for a period not less than a defined number of years, or a combination of the two, receiving as an input, a current age of the user and a gender of the user, receiving an election from a group consisting of a single annuity and a joint annuity…as well as a type of rider for reach or the one or more riders, calculating the other one of (a) the minimum retirement income amount, (b) the defined premium payment amount, and (c) the retirement date of the user …, inputting data indicating payment…, outputting data indicating user receipt of the minimum retirement income amount…, such application based upon the selection of two from the group consisting of (a) a minimum retirement income amount for a user, (b) a defined premium payment amount for payment at each of a plurality of preset payment intervals, and (c) a retirement date of the user; and a minimum retirement income amount for a user and a defined premium payment amount for wherein the application includes the received input and the calculated minimum retirement income amount, the calculated defined premium payment amount, or the calculated retirement date of the user, and the calculation of the unselected input, the minimum retirement income adjusted based on a sales channel for the signature ready-application; converting the portion of the premium payments includes placing the portion of the premium payments in the flexible premium funding account; and transferring a predefined interval payment to the account after each predefined interval until the flexible premium funding account is empty, and monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligation, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the limitations: calculating the other one of (a) the minimum retirement income amount, (b) the defined premium payment amount, and (c) the retirement date of the user …, inputting data indicating payment…, outputting data indicating user receipt of the minimum retirement income amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim is directed to the idea of calculating either a “minimum retirement income amount” based on “defined premium payment amount” or, vice-versa, calculating the premium payment based on the minimum income amount. This is something a human can do with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements a computer processor and using the computer processor to perform the storing, receiving, calculating, receiving, inputting, outputting, representing, converting, monitoring, transferring, and placing steps. The computer processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer function of storing, receiving, calculating, receiving, inputting, outputting, representing, converting, monitoring, transferring, and placing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Moreover, the claim recites the additional elements “storing, in a database, user data”, “receiving, by the computer processor, as an input, an election”, “inputting data, by the computer processor, indicating payment”, “outputting data, by the computer processor, indicating user receipt”, “automatically presenting, via a web page, the user with a signature-ready application with the received input and the calculated minimum retirement income amount, the calculated defined premium payment amount, or the calculated retirement date of the user, said signature-ready application prepared for electronic transmittal”, and “wherein the computer processor automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention”, are mere data gathering, outputting and transmitting, recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, output, and transmitting and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, outputting, and transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the limitations storing investment and pricing data…, receiving as input of a minimum retirement income amount,, receiving as an input, a current age of the user and a gender of the user, receiving an election from a group consisting of a single annuity and a joint annuity, calculating the other one of (a) the minimum retirement income amount, (b) the defined premium payment amount, and (c) the retirement date of the user …, inputting data indicating payment…, outputting data indicating user receipt of the minimum retirement income amount…, converting the portion of the premium payments includes placing the portion of the premium payments in the flexible premium funding account; and transferring a predefined interval payment to the account after each predefined interval until the flexible premium funding account is empty, and automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention, are recited as being performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the computer processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the computer processor).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, the processor, the memory, improvement to the user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, displaying, and transmitting data.
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “storing, in a database, user data”, “receiving, by the computer processor, as an input, an election”, “inputting data, by the computer processor, indicating payment”, “outputting data, by the computer processor, indicating user receipt”, “automatically presenting, via a web page, the user with a signature-ready application with the received input and the calculated minimum retirement income amount, the calculated defined premium payment amount, or the calculated retirement date of the user, said signature-ready application prepared for electronic transmittal”, and “wherein the computer processor automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering, outputting, and transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “storing, in a database, user data”, “receiving, by the computer processor, as an input, an election”, “inputting data, by the computer processor, indicating payment”, “outputting data, by the computer processor, indicating user receipt”, “automatically presenting, via a web page, the user with a signature-ready application with the received input and the calculated minimum retirement income amount, the calculated defined premium payment amount, or the calculated retirement date of the user, said signature-ready application prepared for electronic transmittal”, and “wherein the computer processor automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations storing investment and pricing data…, receiving as input of a minimum retirement income amount,, receiving as an input, a current age of the user and a gender of the user, receiving an election from a group consisting of a single annuity and a joint annuity, calculating the other one of (a) the minimum retirement income amount, (b) the defined premium payment amount, and (c) the retirement date of the user …, inputting data indicating payment…, outputting data indicating user receipt of the minimum retirement income amount…, converting the portion of the premium payments includes placing the portion of the premium payments in the flexible premium funding account; and transferring a predefined interval payment to the account after each predefined interval until the flexible premium funding account is empty, automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
The Berkheimer Memorandum mandates that an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
(1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(2) a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(3) a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); or
(4) a statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), which satisfies the requirements set forth in MPEP § 2144.03.
In this case, the present Specification described in page 17, lines 4-5 using general-purpose computer and available well-known commercial products to perform the method. Thus, the applicant provides (1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements.
Regarding independent claims 7 and 13, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 7 directed to a system, independent claim 13 directed to a process, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. For example, Claim 3 recites wherein each the preset payment intervals is a month; Claim 8 recites wherein the calculating portion calculating the other of the minimum retirement income amount…; Claim 10 recites a presenting portion that presents the user with an application ..; Claim 12 recites wherein the converting the portion of the premium payments includes placing the portion of the premium payment in a flexible premium funding account and transferring a predefined interval payment to the account…; that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “calculating, by the computer processor, the unselected input from the group consisting of (a) the minimum retirement income amount, (b) the defined premium payment amount, and (c) the retirement date of the user, wherein the calculating the other of the minimum retirement income amount and the defined premium payment amount is based on at least of a table of mortality rates and a predetermined interest rate; inputting data, by the computer processor, indicating payment, by the user, of the defined premium payment amount at each of the preset payment intervals; the defined premium payment amount being input, at least in part, from a flexible premium funding account that is associated with the guaranteed minimum retirement income, and the preset payment intervals are based on a difference between the retirement date and a current age of the user” recited in the independent claims 1, 7 and 13.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. (See details above).
1. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claims Do No Recite Any Of The Enumerated Judicial Exceptions”, the Examiner submits that:
The claim recites the method for purchasing annuity contract comprising the following limitations: storing investment and pricing data…, receiving as input of a minimum retirement income amount…wherein the minimum retirement income amount for the user comprises periodic income payments for the remainder of the user’s life, for a period not less than a defined number of years, or a combination of the two, receiving as an input, a current age of the user and a gender of the user, receiving an election from a group consisting of a single annuity and a joint annuity, and whether the user would like to add one or more riders to the single or joint annuity, calculating the other one of (a) the minimum retirement income amount, (b) the defined premium payment amount, and (c) the retirement date of the user …, inputting data indicating payment…, outputting data indicating user receipt of the minimum retirement income amount…, such application based upon the selection of two from the group consisting of (a) a minimum retirement income amount for a user, (b) a defined premium payment amount for payment at each of a plurality of preset payment intervals, and (c) a retirement date of the user; and a minimum retirement income amount for a user and a defined premium payment amount for wherein the application includes the received input and the calculated minimum retirement income amount, the calculated defined premium payment amount, or the calculated retirement date of the user, and the calculation of the unselected input, the minimum retirement income adjusted based on a sales channel for the signature ready-application; converting the portion of the premium payments includes placing the portion of the premium payments in the flexible premium funding account; and transferring a predefined interval payment to the account after each predefined interval until the flexible premium funding account is empty, and monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligation, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior, business relations.
The Specification described at least in page 13, lines 25-30, “Additionally, the minimum retirement income amount may be varied depending on a sales channel pursuant to which a sale of an annuity contract is made. For example, if the sale of the annuity contract was made direct to a consumer (e.g., via an Internet web site) without an agent, an insurer offering such annuity contract can pass its distribution savings realized by virtue of not having to deal with the agent onto the consumer in the form of a higher guaranteed minimum retirement income” and in page 14, lines 10-25, “In one embodiment, the user may input information in a software program or a web page, including a name, an address, a Social Security or tax ID number, a beneficiary, a qualified/nonqualified pension plan, and a 1035 Exchange replacement (i.e., referring to a tax-free exchange pursuant to Section1035 of the Internal Revenue Code). An output of the quote calculator2 may include a signature ready application for purchase of the quoted annuity product. The signature ready application may be an electronic signature ready application that may either be printed out and signed or affixed with an electronic signature and submitted over a network, such as the Internet. The output may also include a pre-authorized check approval form pursuant to which a bank or financial institution may automatically withdraw the premium payment amount from the user's account for payment of the premium payment amounts when due. The output may further include a transmittal sheet for transmittal of the completed electronic application to a broker/dealer”, thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, the claims fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligation, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior, business relations.
Moreover, the claim recites the limitations: calculating the other one of (a) the minimum retirement income amount, (b) the defined premium payment amount, and (c) the retirement date of the user …, inputting data indicating payment…, outputting data indicating user receipt of the minimum retirement income amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim is directed to the idea of calculating either a “minimum retirement income amount” based on “defined premium payment amount” or, vice-versa, calculating the premium payment based on the minimum income amount. This is something a human can do with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The Specification described at least in page 12, lines 25-page 13, line 10, “The quote calculator 2 may include hardware and/or software to calculate retirement account information. Given two of the user's retirement date, the minimum retirement income amount or the defined premium payment amount as inputs, the output module 3 may calculate the other one of the retirement dates, a sum payment amount required to meet the user's minimum retirement income amount or the retirement income amount that would be paid to the user based on the defined premium payment amount the user would like to make, depending on the one not input by the user to the input module1. For example, if the user chooses to input the user's retirement date and the desired minimum retirement income amount, the output of the quote calculator 2 would be the required premium payment amount to achieve the minimum retirement income amount. If the user chooses to input the retirement date and the desired premium payment amount, the output of quote calculator2 would be the minimum retirement income amount available to the user based on the defined premium payment amounts the user would like to make”, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a quote calculator 2”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
2. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claims Integrate The Alleged Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application”, the Examiner submits that:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements computer processor and using the computer processor to perform the storing, receiving, calculating, receiving, inputting, outputting, representing, converting, monitoring, transferring, and placing steps. The computer processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer function of storing, receiving, calculating, receiving, inputting, outputting, representing, converting, transferring, and placing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The claims recite the additional limitations “storing, in a database, user data”, “receiving, by the computer processor, as an input, an election”, “inputting data, by the computer processor, indicating payment”, “outputting data, by the computer processor, indicating user receipt”, “automatically presenting, via a web page, the user with a signature-ready application with the received input and the calculated minimum retirement income amount, the calculated defined premium payment amount, or the calculated retirement date of the user, said signature-ready application prepared for electronic transmittal”, and “wherein the computer processor automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention” are mere data gathering, output and transmitting, recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, output, and transmitting and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, outputting, and transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05.
While the Specification in page states that “Thus, there is a need for an investment vehicle which will provide a minimum retirement income which is portable so that a worker will not lose any income vested in a fully funded investment vehicle if the worker leaves the employ of an employer or changes jobs. There is also a need to provide a defined retirement benefit which will guarantee an individual a minimum defined income level upon the individual's retirement. Additionally, there is a need for a retirement investment vehicle which may provide a guaranteed minimum level of retirement income and also may afford an individual an opportunity for an increase in value of the benefits provided if market performance of the retirement vehicle exceeds a predefined benchmark” there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of providing a new type of investment vehicle, rather than to any technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitations of “storing, in a database, user data”, “receiving, by the computer processor, as an input, an election”, “inputting data, by the computer processor, indicating payment”, “outputting data, by the computer processor, indicating user receipt”, “automatically presenting, via a web page, the user with a signature-ready application with the received input and the calculated minimum retirement income amount, the calculated defined premium payment amount, or the calculated retirement date of the user, said signature-ready application prepared for electronic transmittal”, and “wherein the computer processor automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention” were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Berkheimer Option 2, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Moreover, the claims recite the additional limitations “automatically presenting, via a web page, the user with a signature-ready application with the received input and the calculated minimum retirement income amount, the calculated defined premium payment amount, or the calculated retirement date of the user, said signature-ready application prepared for electronic transmittal”, and “wherein the computer processor automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention” , which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea they do not provide any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer, improvements to the network/network interface, improvements to the functioning of the user interface, they are just merely collecting, transmitting, and displaying data. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of storing, in a database, user data”, “receiving, by the computer processor, as an input, an election”, “inputting data, by the computer processor, indicating payment”, “outputting data, by the computer processor, indicating user receipt”, “automatically presenting, via a web page, the user with a signature-ready application with the received input and the calculated minimum retirement income amount, the calculated defined premium payment amount, or the calculated retirement date of the user, said signature-ready application prepared for electronic transmittal”, and “wherein the computer processor automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations storing investment and pricing data…, receiving as input of a minimum retirement income amount,, receiving as an input, a current age of the user and a gender of the user, receiving an election from a group consisting of a single annuity and a joint annuity, calculating the other one of (a) the minimum retirement income amount, (b) the defined premium payment amount, and (c) the retirement date of the user …, inputting data indicating payment…, outputting data indicating user receipt of the minimum retirement income amount…, converting the portion of the premium payments includes placing the portion of the premium payments in the flexible premium funding account; and transferring a predefined interval payment to the account after each predefined interval until the flexible premium funding account is empty, and automatically monitors the flexible premium funding account balance, and triggers electronic fund transfers at each predefined interval without user intervention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Nga B. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. 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.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights