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 19, 23, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Claim 19: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of acts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps of receiving agent information, analyzing and sorting agent information, transmitting said analyzed and sorted information, saving agent information, providing an interactive real-time display to a display agent identifying information. These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a certain method of organizing a human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a data processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or by a human analog. For example, but for the “by a data processor” language, analyzing and sorting in the context of this claim encompasses the user reviewing and organizing agent information. Similarly, the limitation of sorting, and structuring agent information as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human analyst or advisor or planner but for the recitation of generic computer components. These also include a fundamental economic principle of managing a relationship or transaction. These limitations fall under the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping (Step 2A1-Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application.
The claim only recites additional elements of using a data processor to perform both the receiving, analyzing, sorting and saving steps, and an interactive display that comprises one of an internet webpage, an intranet webpage and structured interface link. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of analyzing and sorting information, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Also, the database server structured as a plurality of relational databases configured to manage data structure as one or more data fields and data records is a generic use of relational databases (see Applicant’s Specification, pg. 7, lines 17-23, citing various examples such as Java™, Sybase™, Microsoft™ and Informix™). The additional limitations of providing an interactive display comprising an Internet web page or Intranet web page, activating a link that generates pages that includes one or more icons, buttons, pop-up boxes, and pull-down menus, amount to no more than transmitting instructions to execute a computer address link. Finally, the Internet webpage limitation is simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and, so do not add significantly more. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The portion of the detailed agent identifying information are accessible through a plurality of embedded hyperlinks structured by categories are merely results of what the links intend to accomplish without integrating the operation or detailed implementation as part of the claim. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a link amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limit the abstract idea to a technological environment without specifying the link in more than a tangential manner. Furthermore, generating pages that includes one or more icons, buttons, pop-up boxes, and pull-down menus, is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Furthermore, the Board has already affirmed that: “We find no indication in the Specification, nor do Appellants direct us to any indication, that the particular operations recited in claim 19, for example, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, invoke any assertedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform the claimed method steps. Also, unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, there is no indication here that the claimed data processor is used other than in its normal, expected, and routine manner for receiving and processing data, nor any indication of a change in the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol”.
Because the steps of generating pages that includes one or more icons, buttons, pop-up boxes, and pull-down menus, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluates in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that this type of pages are anything other than generic pages and official notice is hereby taken that the having pages with one or more icons, buttons, pop-up boxes, and pull-down menus, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field (as they are here). Hardly is there a hyperlink page without at least one or more icons, buttons, pop-up boxes, and pull-down menus. Accordingly, a conclusion that the steps of generating pages that includes one or more icons, buttons, pop-up boxes, and pull-down menus, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option 4.
Furthermore, in Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs., court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network (similar to transmission of data via a link to a server), is a well understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24 is the non-transitory computer readable medium equivalent of claim 19, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra.
Claims 23 and 28 recite that the commission detail information comprises: a mode for the premium for a policy; and an issue age of a policy. This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, and is nonetheless still part of the abstract idea. This limitation is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/31/2022 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant repeats/presents substantially similar arguments as that presented in Applicant’s response filed on 9/28/2021, 1/18/2022, 16/16/2022, 10/21/2022, 4/21/2023, 8/11/2023 and 1/26/2024, 5/31/2024 and 1/10/2025 respectively.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner herein incorporates the previous Response to Arguments from the previous action dated 3/17/2022, 7/22/2022, 01/23/2023, 5/11/2023, 10/26/2023, 3/1/2024, 10/10/2024 and 2/21/2025 respectively.
Applicant further argues that the near real-time remote access capability represents a technological improvement over prior paper-based and manual systems, enabling distributed users to access current information through a networked database system. Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the claimed invention recites specific technical implementation that goes far beyond generic computer components, and a comprehensive networked system architecture with specific interfaces and protocols.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, Examiner notes that most of the elements and limitations of the claims had been addressed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (See Decision on Appeal by PTAB issued on 10/17/2018). The difference between the claims addressed by the PTAB and the current amendments does not alter the analysis of the PTAB because the amendments simply narrow the abstract idea, they do not take the claimed invention out of the realm of abstractness. Furthermore, previous responses starting from Final Action mailed on 10/30/2020 addressed the additional issues raised by Applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Advisors Assistant (dated 9/16/2000).
Lamb (USPN 6791571).
Hanby et al. (USPN 7143051).
These references are as discussed in the office action mailed on 04/14/2015.
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 OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights