DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to the Request for Reconsideration dated April 15, 2026.
2. Claims 55, 68 and 70 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 1-54, 56-60, 61-67 and 69 have been cancelled.
4. Claims 55 and 68 are currently amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
5. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
6. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of in the specification.
Double Patenting
7. 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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 55, 68, and 70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7398241. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims fall within the scope of the claims of the patent.
Claims 55, 68, and 70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 8781929. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims fall within the scope of the claims of the patent.
Claims 55, 68, and 70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8024248. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims fall within the scope of the claims of the patent.
Claims 55, 68, and 70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8799134. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims fall within the scope of the claims of the patent.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
8. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language in the preamble and italicized in further reference to the claims is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the instant claims 55 and 68 recite "[a] computer processing system that provides, via an interactive electronic interface, a user with a defined benefit, based on a retirement income factor that indicates the guaranteed minimum periodic income that the user will receive regardless of how long the user lives and the potential for an increase in the periodic income based on excess investment performance over the retirement income factor, of designated defined benefit investment options, the computer processing system comprising:”
In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “that provides, via an interactive electronic interface, a user with a defined benefit, based on a retirement income factor that indicates the guaranteed minimum periodic income that the user will receive regardless of how long the user lives and the potential for an increase in the periodic income based on excess investment performance over the retirement income factor, of designated defined benefit investment options,” as recited in the preamble only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
As in Claim 55 and substantially similarly in Claim 68:
“a database that stores investment data and data used to calculate the retirement income factor wherein the retirement income factor is based on at least one of a savings commencement date, payout plan selected, product features and expenses, economic cycle, user’s age, user’s gender, retirement date, and user’s marital status;”
“transmit, via an electronic transmission, a guaranteed minimum income payment after the accumulation period of time, the guaranteed minimum income payment comprises a formula of the accumulated value and is based on the retirement income factor, and further comprises a product of the at least one investment payment, or any portion(s) thereof, and the retirement income factor, wherein the guaranteed minimum income payment comprises at least one of a lump sum payment, periodic payments and annuity payouts, and is conditioned on a predetermined pattern of continued contributions, wherein the reinvestment of the guaranteed minimum income payment is determined by the participant”
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.
9. Claims 55, 68, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The substantially similar independent claims 55 and 68 recite systems that stores investment data and data used to calculate the retirement income factor wherein the retirement income factor is based on at least one of a savings commencement data, payout plan selected, product features and expenses, economic cycle, user’s age, user’s gender, retirement date, and user’s marital status;
to receive a contribution on a periodic basis, track accumulated value over a period of time by investing the contribution in a number of selected investment options, and track a guaranteed payment floor that increases as the accumulated value increases over the period of time, compare a benefit level realized by the selected investment options to the guaranteed payment floor, store, in an adjustment account, a balance equal to a difference between the benefit level realized and the guaranteed payment floor when the benefit level is less than the guaranteed payment floor, and recover the adjustment account balance from excess performance when the benefit level exceeds the guaranteed payment floor the selected investment options comprising at least one mutual fund and further comprising at least one other financial product and the accumulated value, that is selected from the group consisting of: (a) being withdrawn at any time, and (b) being paid out after a predetermined period of time; and wherein the defined benefit is within a contribution plan comprising a qualified or non-qualified plan and a variable annuity investment product; wherein the selected investment options comprise investment products that are executed by at least one designated defined benefit investment option to determine at least one investment payment to the designated defined benefit investment option; receive the at least one investment payment, the at least one investment payment comprising at least one of the contribution and the accumulated value, transmit a guaranteed minimum income payment after the accumulation period of time, the guaranteed minimum income payment comprises a formula of the accumulated value and is based on the retirement income factor, and further comprises a product of the at least one investment payment, or any portion(s) thereof, and the retirement income factor, wherein the guaranteed minimum income payment comprises at least one of a lump sum payment, periodic payments and annuity payouts, and is conditioned on a predetermined pattern of continued contributions, wherein the reinvestment of the guaranteed minimum income payment is determined by the participant, and automatically increase the income payment for life for excess performance over the retirement income factor of the designated defined benefit investment option.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Yes. Independent Claims 55 and 68 recite system claims.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 55 (and substantially similar Claim 68) recite the abstract ideas of calculating retirement income factors, tracking accumulated value over a period of time, determining at least one investment payment to the designated defined benefit option, receiving at least one investment payment, transmitting a guaranteed minimum income payment after the accumulation period of time and increasing income payments for life for excess performance over the retirement income factor of the designated defined benefit investment option. The ideas are described by the following limitations:
stores investment data and data used to calculate the retirement income factor wherein the retirement income factor is based on at least one of a savings commencement date, payout plan selected, product features and expenses, economic cycle, user’s age, user’s gender, retirement date, and user’s marital status;
receive a contribution on a periodic basis, track accumulated value over a period of time by investing the contribution in a number of selected investment options, and track a guaranteed payment floor that increases as the accumulated value increases over the period of time, compare a benefit level realized by the selected investment options to the guaranteed payment floor, store in an adjustment account, a balance equal to a difference between the benefit level realized and the guaranteed payment floor when the benefit level is less than the guaranteed payment floor, and recover the adjustment account balance from excess performance when the benefit level exceeds the guaranteed payment floor, the selected investment options comprising at least one mutual fund and further comprising at least one other financial product and accumulated value that is selected from a group consisting of: (a) being withdrawn at any time, and (b) being paid out after a predetermined period of time
wherein the defined benefit is within a contribution plan comprising a qualified or non-qualified plan and a variable annuity investment product;
wherein the selected investment options comprise investment products
to determine at least one investment payment to the designated defined benefit investment option;
receive the at least one investment payment, the at least one investment payment comprising at least one of the contribution and the accumulated value,
transmit a guaranteed minimum income payment after the accumulation period of time, the guaranteed minimum income payment comprises a formula of the accumulated value and is based on the retirement income factor and further comprises a product of the at least one investment payment, or any portion(s) thereof, and the retirement income factor, where the guaranteed minimum income payment comprises at least one of a lump sum payment, periodic payments and annuity payouts, and is conditioned on a predetermined pattern of continued contributions, wherein the reinvestment of the guaranteed minimum income payment is determined by the participant,
automatically increase the income payment for life for excess performance over the retirement income factor of the designated benefit investment option.
Under a BRI, the claims reflect no more than a process to provide a user with a defined benefit by a series of steps (as noted above). As a result, the abstract ideas describe mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to mental processes, the steps describe concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion (i.e., the steps disclosed above). These steps are performing a mental process in a computer environment that recites limitations receiving, sending, observing and evaluating information and with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being practically performed by a human mentally.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, insurance benefits, insurance contracts, investment tracking, and mitigating risk and commercial interactions (business relations).
In the case of the instant claims, for example, the claims recite no more than receiving information input from a user, using generic computer technology to track contributions, a guaranteed payment floor and accumulated value, process, analyze and present the received information and then develop and output at least one investment payout to the designated defined benefit investment option, transmitting payments and increasing payments for life for excess performance. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 55 recites an interactive electronic interface, a database, a computer processor coupled to the database and programmed to, the computer processor constituted by a tangibly embodied programmed computer processor, a communication network, an electronic input, and an electronic transmission.
Claim 68 recites an interactive electronic interface, a database, a computer processor coupled to the database and programmed to, the computer processor constituted by a tangibly embodied programmed computer processor, a communication network, an electronic input, an electronic transmission, and a defined contribution module.
In particular, the claims only recite an interactive electronic interface, a database, a computer processor coupled to the database and programmed to, the computer processor constituted by a tangibly embodied programmed computer processor, a communication network, an electronic input, a defined contribution module, an electronic transmission which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.)
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 55 and 68 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) 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; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); performing repetitive calculations (Bancorp – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and electronically scanning or extracting data (Content Extraction – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as well as setting or determining a price (OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“Figure 2 is a block diagram illustrating one embodiment of a network 200 in which the quoting system 10 of Figure 1 may be implemented. In this embodiment, the quoting system 10 may be available to a plurality of users 21 through a network 23, which may be the Internet. The system 200 may include a company site 20, an internet service provider (ISP) 22 and the users 21. The users 21 may communicate with the company site 20 through the network 23. The users 21 may be connected to the network 23 through the ISP 22. In one embodiment, the users 21 may be coupled to the ISP 22 through a communications link 27. In another embodiment, a user 21 may be coupled directly to the ISP 22.” (See Applicant Spec page 17, lines 1-9)
“Although any network may be used for the system 200, for the purpose of illustration, the users 21 and the company site 20 may be connected to the Internet 23. The users 21 may be connected to the ISPs 22 through client computer systems having resident therein at least one user interface (UI) application module. In one embodiment, the UI application module may include an internet browser, such as a Netscape Navigator™ browser or a Microsoft Internet Explorer™ browser. The users 21 may further include an email communication application module, such as a Microsoft Beyond Mail™ application, a Netscape Mail™ application, a Eudora Pro™ application or the like.” (See Applicant Spec page 18, lines 8-16)
“The users 21 may be comprised of a personal computer running a Microsoft Windows™ 95 operating system, a Microsoft Windows 98 operating system, a Microsoft Windows XP™ operating system, a Millenium™ operating system, a Microsoft Windows NT™ operating system, a Microsoft Windows 2000 operating system, a Microsoft Windows™CE™ operating system, a PalmOS™ operating system, a Unix operating system, a Linux operating system, a Solaris™ operating system, an OS/2™ operating system, a BeOS™ operating system, a MacOS™ operating system, or another similar operating system or platform. The users 21 may also include a microprocessor such as an Intel x86-based device, a Motorola 68K device, a PowerPC™ device, a MIPS device, a Hewlett-Packard Precision™ device, a Digital Equipment Corporation Alpha™ RISC processor, a microcontroller or another general or special purpose device operating under programmed control. The users 21 may further include an electronic memory such as a random access memory (RAM), an electronically programmable read only memory (EPROM), a storage such as a hard drive, a compact disk read only memory (CDROM), a rewritable CDROM or another magnetic, optical or other storage medium, and other associated components connected over an electronic bus, as will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art. The users 21 may also include network-enabled appliance such as a WebTV™ unit, a radio-enabled Palm™ Pilot or similar unit, a set-top box, a networkable game-playing console such as a Microsoft XBOX™, Sony Playstation™ or Playstation II™ console or a Sega Dreamcast™ console, a browser-equipped cellular telephone, or another TCP/IP client or other device.” (See Applicant Spec page 18, line 17 – page 19, line 8)
“Although the database 26 is shown to be outside of the company site 20, the database 26 may reside within the company site 20 in one embodiment. The database 26 may include or interface to an relational database such as that sold commercially by Oracle Corporation. Other databases, such as an Informix™ database, a Database 2 (DB2) database, a Sybase database, an On Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) query format database, a Standard Query Language (SQL) format database, a storage area network (SAN), a Microsoft Access™ database or another similar data storage device, query format, platform or resource may be used.” (See Applicant Spec page 19, lines 20-27)
“The database 26 may be used to store one or more algorithms used to calculate the quote for the premium payment amount or the retirement income amount requested by the user 21. The database 26 may also store one or more tables, charts, investment information, information needed to generate web pages, and any other data needed to generate the quote described with reference to the output module of Figure 1.” (See Applicant Spec page 19, line 28-page 20, line 3)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 55 and 68 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claim 70 further defines the abstract idea that is presented in respective Independent Claims 55 and 68 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as provided above.
No additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea .
Thus, Claims 55, 68 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered as discussed below.
As to the Double Patenting Rejections:
Applicant has requested abeyance of the rejections until allowable subject matter is indicated and notes that they will file a Terminal Disclaimer. (See Applicant Arguments dated 04/15/2026, page 8) Applicant’s request has been acknowledged and the rejections have been maintained.
As to the 112(a) Rejection:
Applicant is thanked for the correction made to obviate the rejection, which has accordingly been withdrawn. (Id. at pages 8-9)
As to the 101 Rejections:
Applicant disagrees that the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. (Id. at page 9) Applicant then presents an overview of the 2019 PEG. (Id. at pages 9-11) Applicant also refers to the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memo on 101 examination for the proposition that if it is a “close call” as to whether a claim is eligible, examiners should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not that the claim is ineligible under 35 USC 101. (Id.)
Applicant then asserts that the independent claims recite patent eligible subject matter because they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong two. (Id. at page 11)
Applicant continues, arguing that the claims now recite the computer processor is programmed to “compare a benefit level realized by the selected investment options to the guaranteed payment floor, store, in an adjustment account, a balance equal to a difference between the benefit level realized and the guaranteed payment floor when the benefit level is less than the guaranteed payment floor, and recover the adjustment account balance from excess performance when the benefit level exceeds the guaranteed payment floor.” (Id.)
Applicant argues that the claim language reflects a specific technical implementation – not merely the abstract idea of managing retirement benefits. (Id.) Applicant argues that the claims recite a particular data structure (the adjustment account) and a defined algorithmic process for storing and recovering balance data based on the relationship between the benefit level and the guaranteed payment floor and argues that this is a particular solution to a particular problem – not the idea of a solution. (Id.) Examiner disagrees. The adjustment account is not defined by a particular data structure in the specification nor is there any reference to an algorithmic process disclosed in the specification. The specification is not providing a technological or technical solution. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant then refers to the Ex Parte Desjardins decision for the proposition that examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere “generic computer components” without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem. (Id.) Further, Applicant notes that claims should not be evaluated at such a high level of generality that potentially meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without adequate explanation. (Id. at page 12)
Applicant argues that the adjustment account mechanism recited in Claims 55 and 68 is not a generic computer component – rather, Applicant argues that it is a specific data structure that stores a balance representing the difference between the benefit level realized and the guaranteed payment floor, and that balance is recovered from excess performance when the benefit level exceeds the floor. (Id. at page 12) Applicant argues that the specification describes the improvement explaining that “an adjustment account is used to monitor and track payments made to the user in order to meet the guaranteed minimum periodic retirement income payment amount” and that “the adjustment account may also be used to store as a balance the difference between the guaranteed minimum periodic retirement income payment amount and the benefit level actually realized by the annuity over a certain period of time”. (Id. at page 12) Applicant further refers to the specification for the explanation of “if at any time the adjustment account reflects a balance, the carrier has a secured interest in future annuity performance (i.e., returns), which may then be used by the administrator…to recover part or all of the outstanding adjustment account balance. (Id.)
None of these recitations actually reflect an algorithmic or technological solution, rather the adjustment account is not described as a technical advance, it is an account that stores data. The data that is being stored is adjustment data, which is the same kind of data that conventionally would have been gathered and stored when attempting to track guaranteed minimum period payments. There is no specific data structure disclosed from which to argue that there is some technological advance or innovation is taking place. These arguments are simply not supported by the specification and there is no basis from which Examiner can conclude the 101 rejection is overcome based on these arguments. The 101 Rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 at 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights