Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states: “The Office Action alleges that Claim 1 and associated dependent claims have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and identifies what the Office alleges to be the corresponding structure for the identified alleged means-plus- function features. Although Applicant believes the present claims do not invoke Section 112(f), Applicant has made clarifying amendments to independent Claim 1 and at least certain of its dependent claims. Applicant does not address the correctness of the corresponding structure identified by the Office for the alleged means-plus-function features.”
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim amendments do not appear to provide definite structure that performs the functions of the various instructions (i.e. software, policy, claim, fuel, etc.…). Therefore, Examiner maintains the 112f interpretation.
Applicant states: Applicant maintains that the Office has not identified to what abstract idea the claims as a whole allegedly are directed. Rather than articulating a coherent abstract concept that characterizes the claimed invention, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action merely lists isolated claim features while ignoring the technological context that gives those features meaning. Controlling authority requires that “the focus of the § 101 inquiry should be on the character of the claimed invention as a whole.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Respectfully, the Office Action violates this requirement by reducing Applicant’s integrated technological solution to disconnected fragments like “process an insurance claim” and “assign a task,” while ignoring that these operations are performed by a decentralized autonomous entity operating through a smart contract on a blockchain consensus system. Here, the Office Action does not identify any coherent abstract idea that characterizes Applicant’s claims as a whole.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As provided by the previous office action, the abstract ideas are the limitation directed to maintaining a listing, process an insurance claim, assign a task, determine a claim award; as drafted, recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind. The claim does not appear to specify the claimed software instructions utilize any of the prior limitations pertaining to the blockchain consensus system, thus improving in technology. The limitations pertaining to the blockchain system is used to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections.
Applicant states: Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office Action’s assertion that the claimed features “could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper.” Among other features, the claimed invention includes: ¢ Multiple decentralized computers operating in coordination ¢« Blockchain consensus mechanisms and immutable data storage e Smart contract execution across a distributed network These aspects cannot be performed with “pen and paper” or in the human mind any more than operating a modern computer network could be performed with pen and paper. The Office’s analysis improperly abstracts away the specific technological infrastructure that facilitates these operations… Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action has not established that Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea in a manner compliant with controlling authority, and that Applicant’s claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of decentralized computers and blockchain consensus, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Because no recitation of the abstract idea improves a distributed system, the claims do not provide significantly more. Therefore, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections.
Applicant states: According to Applicant’s Specification, “in some embodiments, an insurance DAE is capable of autonomously performing the following functions related to, for example, unemployment insurance functions: creating a peer to peer platform for the issuing of new policies, accepting premiums, acquiring human intelligence by employing human agents to complete human intelligence tasks (HITs), evaluating eligibility for new policies and new claims, creating a peer to peer platform for the approving of new claims, implementing a Schelling point protocol to decide the fair length of new claim awards, implementing a Schelling point protocol to determine a fair price for the completion of a HIT, reassigning and auctioning HITs which go uncompleted, assigning fair fees to policy holders who do not participate in HITs, determining claim extensions, and paying claim awards.” Id. at § 0029. At least a portion of these features are recited in Applicant’s independent claims. That is, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant’s claims reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field, and do not merely use a computer or technology as a tool to implement or automate an abstract idea. For example, Applicant respectfully submits that AI technology, including DAOs, are improved according to the claimed DAE implementations. These numerous potential technical benefits provide a technical solution to a technical problem and reduce the claims to a practical application of the alleged abstract idea.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “creating a peer to peer platform for the issuing of new policies, accepting premiums, acquiring human intelligence by employing human agents to complete human intelligence tasks (HITs), evaluating eligibility for new policies and new claims, creating a peer to peer platform for the approving of new claims, implementing a Schelling point protocol to decide the fair length of new claim awards, implementing a Schelling point protocol to determine a fair price for the completion of a HIT, reassigning and auctioning HITs which go uncompleted, assigning fair fees to policy holders who do not participate in HITs, determining claim extensions, and paying claim awards.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states: Claim 1, as an example, recites “decentralized computers in a blockchain consensus system,” “that the... decentralized computers [are] configured to operate a virtual machine as a decentralized autonomous entity using the blockchain consensus system,” a smart contract executing on the virtual machine to perform various operations recited in the claim. Applicant’s Specification amply describes technical advantages associated with the claimed invention, including improvements to a DAO that is managed through a smart contract implemented on decentralized computers in a blockchain consensus system. Here, the claims do not merely recite processing insurance claims in the abstract. They recite a specific technological approach using decentralized autonomous entities, blockchain consensus systems, and human intelligence task coordination—a fundamentally different approach than traditional insurance processing that solves technical problems in autonomous systems. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office must consider the details of Applicant’s arguments related to improving technology, such as improving DAO technology, and reiterates that these numerous potential technical benefits provide a technical solution to a technical problem and reduce the claims to a practical application of the alleged abstract idea.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The improvement of the decentralized entity and blockchain consensus system as argued by Applicant are unclear because the abstract ideas are not integrated such that does not amount to significantly more. The decentralized entity and blockchain consensus system are used to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. Therefore, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections.
Applicant states: For example, for at least those reasons explained in Applicant’s preceding submissions, Applicant maintains that the cited portions of the proposed Pennanen-Kumar-Bush combination do not disclose, teach, or suggest “a plurality of decentralized computers in a blockchain consensus system . . . [and] configured to operate a virtual machine as a_ decentralized autonomous entity using the blockchain consensus system, wherein the blockchain consensus system comprises a blockchain comprising a permanent database,” as recited in Claim 1. For example, Applicant respectfully maintains that the cited portions of Pennanen merely disclose general notions of a blockchain, bitcoin cryptocurrency, and encryption keys. See Pennanen at {{] 0062 (and Table 1), 0064, and 0072. As another example, the only cited portion of Kumar merely discloses that network elements, computers, and/or components of a system and method for virtual machine management may include one or more modules. See Kumar at 6:43-62. Applicant respectfully submits that merely disclosing that blockchains and bitcoins exist and, in a separate reference, that virtual machine management modules can be implemented locally or remotely fails to disclose that “a plurality of decentralized computers [that are] configured to operate a virtual machine as a decentralized autonomous entity using the blockchain consensus system,” as recited in Claim 1. The Office Action’s response appears to focus only on the VM and blockchain aspects of these features. See Office Action at 3. Whether or not Applicant agrees that the cited portions disclose those aspects, nowhere do these references, whether considered alone or in combination, disclose any decentralized autonomous entity implemented using a blockchain consensus system of the type and in the manner recited in Claim 1. The cited portions of Bush and Alleyne do not appear to make up for these deficiencies of the proposed Pennanen-Kumar combination.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pennanen teaches a plurality of virtual machines partaking in a payment service that is used to authenticate a cryptocurrency transaction (i.e. blockchain) (See Abstract). Therefore, Pennanen sufficiently teaches “a plurality of decentralized computers [Fig. 1 plurality of computers] configured to operate a virtual machine as a decentralized autonomous entity [i.e. a plurality of VMs authenticating a transaction] using the blockchain consensus system [i.e. partakes in validating cryptocurrency blockchain transaction].”
Applicant states: Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument only that Pennanen discloses a smart contract of some type (and, as discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that it does not disclose a smart contract), neither Pennanen nor Kumar discloses a smart contract that is part of a virtual machine that operate as a decentralized autonomous entity using a blockchain consensus system and includes software instructions that are configured to perform the particular features recited in Claim 1.. Therefore, the cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, lack any notion of a decentralized autonomous entity and smart contract, let alone a smart contract that is part of a virtual machine that operates as a decentralized autonomous entity using a blockchain consensus system and includes software instructions that are configured to perform the particular features recited in Claim 1.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pennanen establishes that a VM comprises a product (i.e. instructions) that allows for opening of private keys. This process of opening keys is part of a multi-VM validation process of cryptocurrency transactions [See Abstract]. Therefore, Pennanen teaches “wherein the virtual machine comprises: a smart contract module [Software product as provided in 0078], wherein the smart contract module comprises software instructions to implement, on the blockchain consensus system [i.e. the product of opening keys as part of a cryptocurrency blockchain transaction], the decentralized autonomous entity [i.e. one of many VMs] through logic defined by the instructions, the software instructions of the smart contract module being executed on the blockchain consensus system to implement the decentralized autonomous entity [i.e. validating key in the bitcoin transaction via a plurality of VM is executed on the blockchain consensus system]”. The limitations do not provide further details as to how a “smart contract” is to be interpreted other than being general instructions.
Applicant states: Applicant made these arguments in Applicant’s preceding submission, but the Office Action does not appear to respond. To the extent the Office maintains this ground of rejection, Applicant respectfully requests a substantive response. Furthermore, controlling authority states, “[w]here the applicant traverses any rejection, the examiner should, if he or she repeats the rejection, take note of the applicant’s argument and answer the substance of it.” See M.P.E.P. § 707.07(f)(emphasis added). At least because the current Office Action does not answer the substance of the above arguments raised by Applicant, Applicant respectfully submits that it would be improper for any next action to be made final, particularly given the substantial RCE fee paid by Applicant.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kazenas teaches, under broadest reasonable interpretation, that a “claim award” may be determined based upon historical claims of similar losses. Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, that a Schelling point is the determination amount as where the historical claims “converge”.
Further arguments directed to the other dependent claims are addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, 17, 21, the limitations to maintain a listing, process an insurance claim, assign a task, determine a claim award, as drafted, recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations “process an insurance claim, assigning a task, determining the claim award,” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. Limitations directed to receiving a claim, collect premiums, pay the user, as drafted, recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed by organizing human activity.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: decentralized computing nodes, blockchain system, operate a virtual machine, autonomous entity, permanent database, a plurality of modules, a reputation system. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and “operate a virtual machine”, “software instructions to implement…. The autonomous entity, the smart contract module executing on the blockchain, and such modules performing functions, do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of different modules and applying, by the modules, the limitations identified as abstract ideas amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2, the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim module is configured to perform periodic claim checks as the claim award amount is paid during the period of time.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “perform periodic claim checks” recites further mental process, and the additional element of “claim module” is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 3, the processing network of claim 2, wherein the claim module is configured to perform periodic claim checks by accessing the reputation system.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “perform periodic claim checks” recites further mental process, and the additional element of “claim module” is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 4, the processing network of claim 1, wherein: the smart contract module further comprises a new policy module configured to receive, from a user, a policy request to be added to the listing maintained by the policy module; and the new policy module is configured to, in response to receiving the policy request, access the reputation system to retrieve information associated with the user.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “new policy module configured to receive” and the additional element of “the new policy modules” configured to retrieve information add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 6, the processing network of claim 1, wherein the primary resource is a cryptocurrency.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of the resource is a cryptocurrency is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 7, the processing network of claim 6, wherein the cryptocurrency is transacted on Ethereum.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of cryptocurrency is transacted on Ethereum is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 8, the processing network of claim 1, wherein the insurance claim is an unemployment insurance claim.
Regarding claim 8, the insurance claim being an unemployment insurance claim do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 9, the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim module is configured to determine the claim award amount by using Schelling points.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “using Schelling points” recites further mental process that covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 10, the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim module is configured to, during the processing of the insurance claim, retrieve user information from the reputation system by fetching from the reputation system a profile associated with the user particular policyholder.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation the claim module configured to retrieve user information add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 11, 18, the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim module is configured to, during the processing of the insurance claim, fetch a claim statement, a health of a policy pool, and an existing policyholder recommendation, the existing policyholder recommendation being according to the outcomes of the human intelligence tasks.
Regarding claim 11. the limitation the claim module configured to fetch a claim statement, a health of a policy pool, and an existing policyholder recommendation add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 12, the processing network of claim 11, wherein the existing policyholder recommendation comprises a recommendation of a duration of claim payment or an amount of claim payment.
Regarding claim 12, the existing policyholder recommendation comprises other information do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 13, 19, the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim module is configured to, during the processing of the insurance claim, validate that the particular policyholder is eligible to collect payment associated with the insurance claim.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “validate that the particular policyholder” recites further mental process that covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 14, the processing network of claim 13, wherein validating that the particular policyholder is eligible to collect payment comprises validating that the particular policyholder is eligible to collect payment based on a number of credits associated with the particular policyholder.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “validating that the particular policyholder is eligible to collect payment” recites further mental process that covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 15, 20, the processing network of claim 14, wherein at least part of the number of credits are configured to be applied towards validating that the particular policyholder is eligible to collect payment in a future time.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation credits are configured to be applied towards validating add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 16, ‘the processing network of claim 1, wherein the reputation system comprises a social media networking system.
Regarding claim 16, the reputation system comprises a social media networking system do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation 1 and associated dependent claims has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “decentralized computing nodes”, “smart contract module”, “policy module”, “claim module”, ”fuel module”, “new policy module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-16 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification, Fig. 1 [0051] shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen (Pub. No. US 2015/0356555), Kumar (Pat. No. US 9,639,502), in further view of Bush (Pub. No. US 2006/0106650) in further view of Alleyne (Pub. No. US 2017/0069030).
Claim 1, 17, 21, Pennanen teaches “a processing network comprising: a plurality of decentralized computers in a blockchain consensus system ([Fig. 1, 0064] The user terminal 100 submits the bitcoin transfer to a peer-to-peer (P2P) network consisting of a plurality of computers 110;), the plurality of decentralized computers configured to operate a virtual machine as a decentralized autonomous entity using the blockchain consensus system ([Fig. 3, 0072] In a step S3.2 of the flow chart, the payment server system 310 sends a broadcast, or other communication message, to all, or some of, virtual machines (VM) 320, 322, 324 in the Bitcoin system. The virtual machines 320, 322, 324 can refer to Linux containers running in arbitrary locations and systems in the World Wide Web (www), for example. Optionally, the virtual machines 320, 322, 324 (VM's) are hosted in a cloud service, wherein the cloud service is susceptible to being implemented, for example, using home computers, in mobile terminals, in desk top computers, and so forth.) wherein the blockchain consensus system comprises a blockchain comprising a permanent database ([0062] Block Chain A block chain is a public record of Bitcoin transactions in a chronological order. The block chain is shared between all Bitcoin users. It is used to verify the permanence of Bitcoin transactions and to prevent double spending, as aforementioned… In the case of Bitcoin, cryptography is used to make it substantially impossible for a given user to spend funds from another user's wallet or to corrupt the block chain.)” wherein the virtual machine comprises: a smart contract that comprises software instructions to implement, on the blockchain consensus system, the decentralized autonomous entity through logic defined by the software instructions, the software instructions of the smart contract being executed on the blockchain consensus system to implement the decentralized autonomous entity ([0078] In FIG. 4, there is shown an example regarding a manner in which to open private keys (PKI) in a virtual machine. A PIN code is received from a mobile terminal 400 in a step S4.0. A computer program product, namely a software product (i.e. instructions), 430 executing in a Linux container of a computer system receives the PIN code and uses the PIN code to access an encrypted portion 412, namely a vault which is an encrypted area in non-volatile memory, for example hard disks of the computer system whereat the PKI's are stored, of a hard disk 410, or other permanent data memory device. The encrypted portion is decrypted to random access memory (RAM) 420 of the computer in order to provide the PKI keys 422. The PKI keys 422 are used in a step S4.3 by the software 430 executing in the computer system. The PKI keys 422 are used to confirm the Bitcoin transaction. The RAM 420 is then emptied after using the PKI keys 422.)”.
However, Pennanen may be silent regarding further details of instructions (i.e. the software products executing within a virtual machine).
Kumar teaches software products may be combined, integrated, separated that each perform certain functions such that teaches “the software instructions comprising…instructions ([Col. 6, Lines 43-62] The description below describes network elements, computers, and/or components of a system and method for virtual machine management that may include one or more modules. As used herein, the term “module” may be understood to refer to computing software, firmware, hardware, and/or various combinations thereof. … The modules (i.e. instructions) may be combined, integrated, separated, and/or duplicated to support various applications. Also, a function described herein as being performed at a particular module may be performed at one or more other modules and/or by one or more other devices instead of or in addition to the function performed at the particular module. Further, the modules may be implemented across multiple devices and/or other components local or remote to one another. Additionally, the modules may be moved from one device and added to another device, and/or may be included in both devices.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Kumar with the teachings of Pennanen in order to provide details of software functionality. The motivation for applying Kumar teaching with Pennanen teaching is to provide a system that allows instruction-based functionality. Together Pennanen, Kumar teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Pennanen with the teachings of Grey by known methods and gained expected results.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach certain functionality of the instructions.
Bush teaches different functions supporting transactions such that teaches “software instructions comprising (i.e. as taught by Kumar): a policy instruction configured to maintain a listing of a plurality of policyholders associated with the decentralized autonomous entity ([0016] According to step 80, the insurance company collects information regarding to how the debit account was used. Information so collected includes how many payments were made on the account, how much each payment was for, who each payment was made to, when each payment was made, how much money currently remains in the account, and the like. This information may be readily entered into one or more databases maintained by the insurance company. This data entry process is step 90.); a claim instructions configured to: receive an insurance claim from a particular policy holder of the plurality of policyholders associated with the decentralized autonomous entity ([0014] Beginning at step 10, the insurance company receives a claim from an insured policyholder.); and process the insurance claim to determine a claim award amount associated with the insurance claim ([0014] Upon completion of his investigation, the adjuster will make a determination of the value of the claim (step 40). … The adjuster will arrive at a dollar value to assign to the claim in step 40.), wherein processing the insurance claim comprises:
accessing a reputation system ([0023] According to still another embodiment of the present invention, the purchase information collected in the database is used identify service providers that could be defrauding the insurance company and its clientele.); and a fuel instructions configured to pay the particular policy holder the determined claim award amount over a period of time in a plurality of payments using a primary resource … ([0027] In still another embodiment of the present invention, insurance payments that require ongoing payments for a period of time are disbursed as loads onto a debit or credit card product. As one example, employee disability benefits as described previously are disbursed to the employee as ongoing loads onto the debit or credit card product that was issued to them for payment of the benefits. This eliminates the need to receive checks through the mail and deposit the checks.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Bush’s insurance claims with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, modules within a blockchain system. The motivation for applying Bush teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, teaching is to provide a system that allows for secure distributed processing of financial information. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Bush with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, by known methods and gained expected results.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach the new limitations, i.e. where the determined claim award originates.
Alleyne teaches “assigning human intelligence tasks to one or more policyholders of the plurality of policyholders; determining the claim award amount according to outcomes of the human intelligence tasks ([0045] In FIG. 10 there is shown flow-chart illustrating an exemplary process 1000 of member participation in an event pool according an embodiment of the invention. While the event pool is running (e.g., within its term), at 1002, the system will periodically remind members that they are participating in the event pool. At 1004, if a participating member encounters a loss, that member will submit a claim including proof of the loss. At 1006, the claim request and proof of loss are distributed to each participating member for determining the validity of the loss. At 1008, each participating member, after having reviewed the proof of loss of a claim makes a decision of whether to pay the benefit to the beneficiary. [0014] (f) validating, by said processor based system, the received claim request by each member participant; [0015] (g) calculating, by said processor based system, a claim share for each member participant, wherein the claim share is calculated by dividing the claim benefit by the number of member participants; [0016] (h) withdrawing, by said processor based system, the total calculated claim share from the event pool fund account); and a fuel module (i.e module of VM provided above) configured to: collect premiums from the policyholders associated with the decentralized autonomous entity (i.e VM as provided above), a policy resource pool being formed from the premiums ([0012] (d) funding an event pool fund account, by said processor based system, by withdrawing the member enrollment fee from the funds account of each member participant and depositing those funds in the event pool fund account that is associated with the event pool); and pay the particular policyholder the determined claim award amount over a period of time … using a primary resource from the policy resource pool ([0017] (i) crediting, by said processor based system, the total calculated claim share to a benefit account of the member participant who submitted the claim request. [0045] At 1010, if the participants decide to pay the benefit, funds are released to pay the benefit on the claim.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Alleyne with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush in order to provide a system that teaches funding a claim. The motivation for applying Alleyne teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush teaching is to provide a system that allows for distribution of risk among members of the same policy. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Alleyne with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush by known methods and gained expected results.
Claims 2, 13-15, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne in further view of Roscoe (Pub. No. US 2012/0209631).
Claim 2, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Roscoe teaches “the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim instructions are configured to perform periodic claim checks as the claim award amount is paid during the period of time ([0060] If there is a benefit balance, then, at the time for the next periodic payment 1036, the system checks to see if data indicative of death of the insured, or termination of the claim, such as by expiration of a certification or receipt of an indication that the insured no longer meets the requirements for the medical condition, has been received 1036. If such information has been received, then the system generates a communication 1040 to the owner that benefit payments are ended. Otherwise, the process flow returns to accessing data indicative of values to be changed, and continues from there.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Roscoe with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne in order to provide a system that teaches claim checking. The motivation for applying Roscoe teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne teaching is to provide a system that allows for distributing amounts accurately. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Roscoe teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Roscoe with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 13, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Roscoe teaches “the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim instructions are configured to, during the processing of the insurance claim, validate that particular policy holder is eligible to collect payment associated with the insurance claim ([0060] If there is a benefit balance, then, at the time for the next periodic payment 1036, the system checks to see if data indicative of death of the insured, or termination of the claim, such as by expiration of a certification or receipt of an indication that the insured no longer meets the requirements for the medical condition, has been received 1036. If such information has been received, then the system generates a communication 1040 to the owner that benefit payments are ended. Otherwise, the process flow returns to accessing data indicative of values to be changed, and continues from there.)”.
Rational to claim 2 is applied here.
Claim 14, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Roscoe teaches “the processing network of claim 13, wherein validating that the particular policy holder is eligible to collect payment comprises validating that the particular policy holder is eligible to collect payment based on a number of credits associated with the user ([0060] If there is a benefit balance, then, at the time for the next periodic payment 1036, the system checks to see if data indicative of death of the insured, or termination of the claim, such as by expiration of a certification or receipt of an indication that the insured no longer meets the requirements for the medical condition, has been received 1036. If such information has been received, then the system generates a communication 1040 to the owner that benefit payments are ended. Otherwise, the process flow returns to accessing data indicative of values to be changed, and continues from there.)”.
Rational to claim 2 is applied here.
Claim 15, 20 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Roscoe teaches “the processing network of claim 14, wherein at least part of the number of credits are configured to be applied towards validating that the particular policy holder is eligible to collect payment in a future time ([0060] If there is a benefit balance, then, at the time for the next periodic payment 1036, the system checks to see if data indicative of death of the insured, or termination of the claim, such as by expiration of a certification or receipt of an indication that the insured no longer meets the requirements for the medical condition, has been received 1036. If such information has been received, then the system generates a communication 1040 to the owner that benefit payments are ended. Otherwise, the process flow returns to accessing data indicative of values to be changed, and continues from there.)”.
Rational to claim 2 is applied here.
Claim 19, “the method of claim 17, wherein processing the insurance claim comprises validating that the user is eligible to collect payment associated with the insurance claim based on a number of credits associated with the user” is similar to claim 13 and therefore rejected with the same references and citations.
Claims 3, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Roscoe in view of De Vries (Pub. No. US 2015/0220862).
Claim 3, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
De Vries teaches “the processing network of claim 2, wherein the claim instructions are configured to perform periodic claim checks by accessing the reputation system ([0025] As used herein, "real time" monitoring is intended to mean automated, ongoing, continuous monitoring of a single, individual social media profile that may be carried out pursuant to a preset schedule at which automated queries are run against a user's social media profile, whether once per second, once per hour, or some fraction or multiple thereof, as opposed to an individual human's monitoring of such a single, individual social media profile that inherently must be interrupted as the human monitor undertakes other activities. In order to manage the collection of responses to natural language queries generated by the system, the natural language queries are run against only the electronic postings in an individual customer's social media profile, and only those postings that are responsive to the natural language search queries (e.g., that include information that is potentially indicative of fraud) are collected and archived.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of De Vries with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Roscoe in order to provide a system that teaches claim checking. The motivation for applying De Vries teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Roscoe teaching is to provide a system that allows for distributing amounts accurately. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Roscoe, De Vries teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of De Vries with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Roscoe by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 16, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
De Vries teaches “the processing network of claim 1, wherein the reputation system comprises a social media networking system ([0025] As used herein, "real time" monitoring is intended to mean automated, ongoing, continuous monitoring of a single, individual social media profile that may be carried out pursuant to a preset schedule at which automated queries are run against a user's social media profile, whether once per second, once per hour, or some fraction or multiple thereof, as opposed to an individual human's monitoring of such a single, individual social media profile that inherently must be interrupted as the human monitor undertakes other activities. In order to manage the collection of responses to natural language queries generated by the system, the natural language queries are run against only the electronic postings in an individual customer's social media profile, and only those postings that are responsive to the natural language search queries (e.g., that include information that is potentially indicative of fraud) are collected and archived.)”.
Rational to claim 3 is applied here.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, in view of Dhir (Pub. No. US 2012/0308139)
Claim 4, the combination may not explicitly teach the claim.
Dhir teaches “the processing network of claim 1, wherein the smart contract instructions further comprise new policy instructions configured to receive, from a user, a policy request to be added to the listing maintained by the policy module ([0053] FIG. 8 is a diagram of a mobile device capable of providing a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to present policy management options and active policies, according to one embodiment. In this example, screen 801 includes window 801a that presents multiple managements options: 1) submit claim, 2) check claim status, 3) modify policy, 4) upload file, 5) request quote, and 6) help. It is noted that this request quote option may pertain to new policies that the user may wish to add for the current insurance carrier; as opposed to an application that requests a rate quote across multiple carriers. The window 801b presents a list of all active policies associated with the user; e.g., auto, home, and boat.)” an wherein Bush teaches “the new policy instructions are configured to, in response to receiving the policy request, access the reputation system to retrieve information associated with the user ([0023] According to still another embodiment of the present invention, the purchase information collected in the database is used identify service providers (i.e. new module of Dhir) that could be defrauding the insurance company and its clientele. The data may be analyzed 100 to identify providers whose charges vary beyond a threshold amount for the same or similar services or who consistently charge substantially more than their competitors for the same services. While not conclusive proof of misconduct, such information could be sufficient to trigger an investigation into the business practices of suspect providers.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Dhir with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne in order to provide a system that teaches claim managing policies. The motivation for applying Dhir teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne teaching is to provide a system that allows for modifying insurance. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Dhir teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Dhir with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne in view of McKenzie (Pub. No. US 2016/0140653).
Claim 6, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
McKenzie teaches “the processing network of claim 1, wherein the primary resource is a cryptocurrency ([0007] Bitcoin as a form of payment for products and services has seen growth, and merchants have an incentive to accept the digital currency because fees are typically lower than those imposed by credit card processors which generally range from between two and three percent (2-3%).)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of McKenzie with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne in order to provide a system that teaches cryptocurrency. The motivation for applying McKenzie teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne teaching is to provide a system that allows for decentralized funds. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, McKenzie teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of McKenzie with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, McKenzie in view of Mcconaghy (Pub. No. US 2016/0203572).
Claim 7, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Mcconaghy teaches “the processing network of claim 6, wherein the cryptocurrency is transacted on Ethereum ([0072] As discussed earlier, online services also include cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Litecoin, which has an ID (the Bitcoin address which is the cryptographic public key) and a measure of security that restricts access (the cryptographic private key). In cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, or in online services using cryptoprotocols such as NXT, Counterparty and Ethereum, transactions or ownership are secured via a ledger (electronic ledger) that is distributed across a network (for example Bitcoin's Blockchain). Online services also include possible new online services that have a secure ledger to track transactions or ownership of currency or a more general token of ownership; such a ledger can be, but does not need to be public or peer-distributed like Bitcoin's blockchain.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Mcconaghy with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, McKenzie in order to provide a system that teaches network means for cryptocurrency. The motivation for applying Mcconaghy teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, McKenzie teaching is to provide a system that allows for decentralized funds. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, McKenzie, Mcconaghy teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Mcconaghy with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, McKenzie by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, in view of Solomon (Pub. No. US 2009/0150190).
Claim 8, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Solomon teaches “the processing network of claim 1, wherein the insurance claim is an unemployment insurance claim ([0039] This approach has the advantage that data is available for most states of the rates of approval of unemployment insurance claims, which data can be used to establish a reliable actuarial model from which premiums can be derived and a predictable profit achieved.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Solomon with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne in order to provide a system that teaches types of insurance claims. The motivation for applying Solomon teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne teaching is to provide a system that allows for other types for insured services. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Solomon teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Solomon with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, in view of Kazenas (Pub. No. US 8,494,938).
Claim 9, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Kazenas teaches “the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim instructions are configured to determine the claim award amount by using Schelling points ([Col. 2, Line 29-39] The estimation module can receive information about the loss from the notice receiving module. Using this information, the estimation module can determine an expected loss amount based on historical claim data for similar losses. The reserve module can withdraw the expected loss amount from a reserve account of the membership institution. The activation module can activate a payment device with access to the expected loss amount withdrawn from the reserve account. The payment device allows the member to directly make loss related payments consistent with the insurance coverage.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Kazenas with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne in order to provide a system that teaches amount determination. The motivation for applying Kazenas teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne teaching is to provide a system that allows for improving claim amount accuracy. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Kazenas teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Kazenas with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne by known methods and gained expected results.
Claims 10, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, in view of Fitzgerald (Pub. No. US 2014/0200929).
Claim 10, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Fitzgerald teaches “the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim instructions are configured to, during the processing of the insurance claim, retrieve the user information from the reputation system by fetching from the reputation system a profile associated with the particular policyholder ([0198] FIG. 68 illustrates a process 8100 of a method of the present invention, where the authorized user has submitted an insurance claim which is received 8110 by the insurance entity. The insurance claim is analyzed, and the corresponding record for the authorized user's mobile device is retrieved 8130 from the insurance tracking database. Analysis may begin with information stored in the insurance tracking database, comparing information to the information in the claim, determining veracity and likelihood of the loss type specified in the claim, and additionally, the insurance entity may attempt to initiate communication with the security application in the mobile device 8130. Depending on the responses from the security application, if any, and the data stored in the information tracking database for the mobile device, a determination is made regarding whether the circumstances indicate that the claim is fraudulent 8140. Such factors of analysis indicating fraud may have occurred include elements such as determining that the security application was disabled proximate to the reported date of loss; determining that a user of the mobile device attempted to disable the security application proximate to the reported date of loss; determining that a user of the mobile device successfully entered a passcode to unlock the mobile device after the reported date of loss; determining that a new phone number was assigned to the mobile device after the reported date of loss; determining that the authorized user of the mobile device has suppressed receipt of messages sent from an insuring entity; determining that a security application was installed after the reported date of loss of the mobile device; determining that the mobile device's location after the reported date of loss is proximate to previous locations stored in the insurance tracking database; determining that one or more phone numbers called by the mobile device after the reported date of loss exist within a contact list stored in the insurance tracking database; determining that the mobile device is in communication with the same WiFi network as it was before the insurance claim was submitted; determining that the mobile device switches communication between the same WiFi network and mobile telephony network as it did before the insurance claim was submitted; determining that a last known location reported by the user differs from a last reported location transmitted by the mobile device to the insurance tracking database; instructing the authorized user to submit insurance claim information through a website,)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Fitzgerald with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne in order to provide a system that teaches user management. The motivation for applying Fitzgerald teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne teaching is to provide a system that allows for tracking of users’ reputation for providing certain privileges. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Fitzgerald teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Fitzgerald with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 11, 18 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Fitzgerald teaches “the processing network of claim 1, wherein the claim instructions are configured to, during the processing of the insurance claim, fetch a claim statement, a health of a policy pool, and an existing policyholder recommendation ([0198] FIG. 68 illustrates a process 8100 of a method of the present invention, where the authorized user has submitted an insurance claim which is received 8110 by the insurance entity. The insurance claim is analyzed, and the corresponding record for the authorized user's mobile device is retrieved 8130 from the insurance tracking database. Analysis may begin with information stored in the insurance tracking database, comparing information to the information in the claim, determining veracity and likelihood of the loss type (i.e. claim statement) specified in the claim, and additionally, the insurance entity may attempt to initiate communication with the security application in the mobile device 8130. Depending on the responses from the security application, if any, and the data stored in the information tracking database for the mobile device, a determination is made regarding whether the circumstances (i.e. health) indicate that the claim is fraudulent 8140. Such factors of analysis indicating fraud may have occurred include elements such as determining that the security application was disabled proximate to the reported date of loss; determining that a user of the mobile device attempted to disable the security application proximate to the reported date of loss; determining that a user of the mobile device successfully entered a passcode to unlock the mobile device after the reported date of loss; determining that a new phone number was assigned to the mobile device after the reported date of loss; determining that the authorized user of the mobile device has suppressed receipt of messages sent from an insuring entity; determining that a security application was installed after the reported date of loss of the mobile device; determining that the mobile device's location after the reported date of loss is proximate to previous locations stored in the insurance tracking database; determining that one or more phone numbers called by the mobile device after the reported date of loss exist within a contact list stored in the insurance tracking database; determining that the mobile device is in communication with the same WiFi network as it was before the insurance claim was submitted; determining that the mobile device switches communication between the same WiFi network and mobile telephony network as it did before the insurance claim was submitted; determining that a last known location reported by the user differs from a last reported location transmitted by the mobile device to the insurance tracking database; instructing the authorized user to submit insurance claim information through a website, [0055] Another and optional feature of the device is detection of a security compromise event (120) and a determination (130) (i.e. recommendation) of whether the function of the device should be altered in response to the security compromise event. If appropriate, the functionality of the device is altered (140) if a security compromise event (including the device being lost or stolen).), the existing policyholder recommendation being according to the outcomes of the human intelligence tasks (i.e. as taught by Alleyne).
Rational to claim 10 is applied here.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Fitzgerald in view of Nudd (Pub. No. US 2009/0187433).
Claim 12, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Nudd teaches “the processing network of claim 11, wherein the existing policyholder recommendation comprises a recommendation of a duration of claim payment or an amount of claim payment ([0082] In the event of loss and/or theft of an item, upon receiving a claim as described in step 302, the insurance company provides a benefit which may include but is not limited to: a) replacing the insured item with a similar or equivalent item and/or providing monetary compensation in an amount associated with the value of the insured item or b) if the lost or stolen item is reported as found by an item finder, paying for and/or facilitating the return of the original item to its owner;)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Nudd with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Fitzgerald in order to provide a system that teaches amount determination. The motivation for applying Nudd teaching with Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Fitzgerald teaching is to provide a system that allows for improving claim amount accuracy. Together Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Fitzgerald, Nudd teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Nudd with the teachings of Pennanen, Kumar, Bush, Alleyne, Fitzgerald by known methods and gained expected results.
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 WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199