DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of the Application
Applicant's amendment filed on January 9, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 22-23, 26-28, 36, and 45-47 were amended. Claims 48 was canceled. New Claim 49 was added. Claims 22-29, 31-34, 36, 41, 45-47, and 49 remain pending in the application and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-29, 31-34, 36, 41, 45-47, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
• Claim 45 recites the limitation "output a probability that the candidate user actually has the one or more health-related characteristics" in paragraph 12. In fact, there is no teaching of: The claim lacks written description support because there is no written description of this limitation in the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.03(I). In fact, there is no teaching of the following limitations anywhere in the disclosure: "output a probability that the candidate user actually has the one or more health-related characteristics", anywhere within the Specification or any material(s) incorporated therein by reference.
Claims 22-29, 31-34, 36, 41, and 49 are also rejected on the same grounds due to their dependency on the above-rejected Claim 45.
• Claim 46 recites the limitation "output a probability that the candidate user actually has the one or more health-related characteristics" in paragraph 10. In fact, there is no teaching of: The claim lacks written description support because there is no written description of this limitation in the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.03(I). In fact, there is no teaching of the following limitations anywhere in the disclosure: "output a probability that the candidate user actually has the one or more health-related characteristics", anywhere within the Specification or any material(s) incorporated therein by reference.
• Claim 47 recites the limitation "output a probability that the candidate user actually has the one or more health-related characteristics" in paragraph 10. In fact, there is no teaching of: The claim lacks written description support because there is no written description of this limitation in the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.03(I). In fact, there is no teaching of the following limitations anywhere in the disclosure: "output a probability that the candidate user actually has the one or more health-related characteristics", anywhere within the Specification or any material(s) incorporated therein by reference.
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 22-29, 31-34, 36, 41, 45-47, and 49 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.
Claims 22-29, 31-34, 36, 41, 45-47, and 49 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 45 -: 45, a for training and utilizing a model to verify health data provided by a candidate user, comprising: instructions; and in communication with, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause to: train the model to verify health-related characteristics based upon moving image data by: training the model in a first stage with a first training set comprising historical image data of a plurality of users and known health-related characteristics of each user of the plurality of users included in the historical image data; and training the model in a second stage with a second training set comprising historical video data and known health-related characteristics of each user of the plurality of users included in the historical video data; receive user health dat the candidate user provided associated with the candidate user, the user health data including one or more health-related characteristics associated with the candidate user according to the candidate user; receive user moving image dat the candidate user provided; input the user moving image data and the one or more health-related characteristics associated with the candidate user according to the candidate user to the model, wherein the model is configured to: extract additional user health data from the user moving image data; analyze the user moving image data and the additional user health data with respect to the one or more health-related characteristics by comparing user moving image data and the additional user health data to the historical image data and the historical video data; and output a probability that the candidate user actually has the one or more health-related characteristics. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 46 -: 46, instructions for training and utilizing a model to verify health data provided by a candidate user, wherein the instructions, in response to execution, cause to: train the model to... training the model... training the model... receive user health... receive user moving... input the user moving... extract additional... [id. at 45], analyze the user moving image data and the additional user health data with respect to the one or more health-related characteristics by comparing the user moving image data and the additional user health data to the historical image data and the historical video data; and output a probability... [id. at 45], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 47 -: 47, a method for training and utilizing a model to verify health data provided by a candidate user, method implemented by in communication with, method comprising: training the model to verify health-related characteristics based upon moving image data by: training the model... training the model... [id. at 45], receiving user health dat the candidate user provided associated with the candidate user, the user health data including one or more health-related characteristics associated with the candidate user according to the candidate user; receiving user moving image dat the candidate user provided; inputting the user moving image data and the one or more health-related characteristics associated with the candidate user according to the candidate user to the model, wherein the model is configured to: extract additional health data from the user moving image data; analyze the user moving... [id. at 46], output a probability... [id. at 45], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 22 -: 22, as set forth in claim 45, wherein the candidate user is an applicant for insurance coverage including a term of insurance coverage, and wherein the insurance coverage is life insurance coverage. Claim 23 -: 23, as set forth in claim 45, wherein the candidate user is an applicant for insurance coverage including a term of insurance coverage, and wherein the term of insurance coverage includes an insurance premium or discount. Claim 24 -: 24, as set forth in claim 45, wherein the user moving image data of the insurance applicant includes a digital image. Claim 25 -: 25, as set forth in claim 45, wherein the moving image data includes an analog image. Claim 26 -: 26, as set forth in claim 45, wherein is further: trained to correlate aspects of appearance with the health-related characteristics by being provided with additional data comprising still image data of individuals having at least one known health-related characteristic; and configured to determine the one or more health-related characteristics in part by analyzing a still image of the candidate user. Claim 27 -: 27, as set forth in claim 26, wherein the still image of the candidate user is an otherwise non-diagnostic conventional image. Claim 28 -: 28, as set forth in claim 26, wherein the still image of the candidate user is a selfie taken by the candidate user. Claim 29 -: 29, as set forth in claim 45, wherein the model is trained using one or more. Claim 31 -: 31, as set forth in claim 45, wherein the model comprises. Claim 32 -: 32, as set forth in claim 45, wherein is. Claim 33 -: 33, as set forth in claim 31, wherein is.... [id. at 32], Claim 34 -: 34, as set forth in claim 45, wherein the one or more health-related characteristics are at least one of age, sex, weight, height, ethnicity, lifespan, cause of death, tobacco use, alcohol use, drug use, diet, existing medical conditions, or risk factors for future medical conditions. Claim 36 -: 36, as set forth in claim 45, wherein is further configured to use the one or more health-related characteristics to substantially determine a term of coverage. Claim 41 -: 41, as set forth in claim 45, wherein is further configured to: a third training set comprising historical audio data and health-related characteristics associated with the historical audio data; and train the model in a third stage using the third training set. Claim 49 -: 49. as set forth in claim 45, wherein the instructions further cause to analyze the user moving image data and the additional user health data without further data associated with the candidate user inputted to the model. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: using images and voice recordings to facilitate underwriting life insurance as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 45-47 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 45 and is described by the steps of independent claim 46 and is described by the steps of independent claim 47.
Claim 45 (as amended): Materially regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 45 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer system", "machine learning model", "at least one memory", "stored thereon", "at least one processor", "computing device", and "using video magnification". However, independent claim 45 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer system", "machine learning model", "at least one memory", "stored thereon", "at least one processor", "computing device", and "using video magnification" of independent claim 45 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a computer system for training … the computer system comprising", "at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and", "at least one processor in … least one processor to", "train the machine learning model … moving image data by", "training the machine learning model … historical image data; and", "training the machine learning model … the historical video data", "receive user health data for … to the candidate user", "receive user moving image data … by the computing device", "input the user moving image … model is configured to", "extract additional user health data … data using video magnification", "analyze the user moving image … historical video data; and" and "output a probability that the … or more health-related characteristics") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "at least one memory with instructions stored thereon; and", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 45 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 46 (as amended): Materially with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 46 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium", "stored thereon", "machine learning model", "at least one processor", "computing device", and "using video magnification". However, independent claim 46 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium", "stored thereon", "machine learning model", "at least one processor", "computing device", and "using video magnification" of independent claim 46 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a at least one non-transitory … least one processor to", "train the machine learning model … moving image data by", "training the machine learning model … historical image data; and", "training the machine learning model … the historical video data", "receive user health data for … to the candidate user", "receive user moving image data … by the computing device", "input the user moving image … model is configured to", "extract additional user health data … data using video magnification", "analyze the user moving image … historical video data; and" and "output a probability that the … or more health-related characteristics") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a at least one non-transitory … least one processor to" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 45 also applies hereto. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a at least one non-transitory … least one processor to", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 45 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 46 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 47 (as amended): Materially regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 47 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-implemented", "machine learning model", "at least one processor", "at least one memory", "computing device", and "using video magnification". However, independent claim 47 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-implemented", "machine learning model", "at least one processor", "at least one memory", "computing device", and "using video magnification" of independent claim 47 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a computer-implemented method for training … the computer-implemented method comprising", "training the machine learning model … moving image data by", "training the machine learning model … historical image data; and", "training the machine learning model … the historical video data", "receiving user health data for … to the candidate user", "receiving user moving image data … by the computing device", "inputting the user moving image … model is configured to", "extract additional health data from … data using video magnification", "analyze the user moving image … historical video data; and" and "output a probability that the … or more health-related characteristics") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a computer-implemented method for training … the computer-implemented method comprising" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 45 also applies hereto. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a computer-implemented method for training … the computer-implemented method comprising", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 45 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 47 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claim: Nothing in independent claim 45-47 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 22-29, 31-34, 36, 41, and 49 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 29: Dependent claim 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, " supervised machine learning", and "unsupervised machine learning" of dependent claim 29 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 31: Dependent claim 31 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "neural network" of dependent claim 31 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 32: Dependent claim 32 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "convolutional" of dependent claim 32 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 33: Dependent claim 33 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "deep learning" of dependent claim 33 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 36: Dependent claim 36 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "automatically" of dependent claim 36 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 41: Dependent claim 41 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "collect" of dependent claim 41 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22: Dependent claim 22 adds additional method steps of "wherein the candidate user is an applicant for insurance coverage including a term of insurance coverage, and wherein the insurance coverage is life insurance coverage". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 22 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 22 is ineligible.
Claim 23: Dependent claim 23 adds additional method steps of "wherein the candidate user is an applicant for insurance coverage including a term of insurance coverage, and wherein the term of insurance coverage includes an insurance premium or discount". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 23 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 23 is ineligible.
Claim 24: Dependent claim 24 adds an additional method step of "wherein the user moving image data of the insurance applicant includes a digital image". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 24 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 24 is ineligible.
Claim 25: Dependent claim 25 adds an additional method step of "wherein the moving image data includes an analog image". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 25 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 25 is ineligible.
Claim 26: Dependent claim 26 adds an additional method step of "wherein the at least one processor is further", "trained to correlate aspects of appearance with the health-related characteristics by being provided with additional data comprising still image data of individuals having at least one known health-related characteristic; and", "configured to determine the one or more health-related characteristics in part by analyzing a still image of the candidate user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 26 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 26 is ineligible.
Claim 27: Dependent claim 27 adds an additional method step of "wherein the still image of the candidate user is an otherwise non-diagnostic conventional image". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 27 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 27 is ineligible.
Claim 28: Dependent claim 28 adds an additional method step of "wherein the still image of the candidate user is a selfie taken by the candidate user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 28 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 28 is ineligible.
Claim 29: Dependent claim 29 adds an additional method step of "wherein the machine learning model is trained using one or more of supervised machine learning or unsupervised machine learning". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 29 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 29 is ineligible.
Claim 31: Dependent claim 31 adds an additional method step of "wherein the machine learning model comprises a neural network". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 31 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 31 is ineligible.
Claim 32: Dependent claim 32 adds an additional method step of "wherein the neural network is a convolutional neural network". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 32 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 32 is ineligible.
Claim 33: Dependent claim 33 adds an additional method step of "wherein the neural network is a deep learning neural network". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 33 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 33 is ineligible.
Claim 34: Dependent claim 34 adds an additional method step of "wherein the one or more health-related characteristics are at least one of age, sex, weight, height, ethnicity, … use, alcohol use, drug use, diet, existing medical conditions, or risk factors for future medical conditions". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 34 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 34 is ineligible.
Claim 36: Dependent claim 36 adds an additional method step of "wherein the at least one processor is further configured to use the one or more health-related characteristics to substantially automatically determine a term of coverage". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 36 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 36 is ineligible.
Claim 41: Dependent claim 41 adds additional method steps of "collect a third training set comprising historical audio data and health-related characteristics associated with the historical audio data; and", "train the machine learning model in a third stage using the third training set". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 41 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 45 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed 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), 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., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 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), pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 41 is ineligible.
Claim 49: Dependent claim 49 adds an additional method step of "wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to analyze the user moving image data … health data without further data associated with the candidate user inputted to the machine learning model". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 49 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 22 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 22 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 49 is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding indefiniteness and/or lack of written description rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant's arguments submitted January 9, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed October 10, 2025 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the October 10, 2025 Non-Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 112 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• Specifically, the Applicant argued:
"[] The amendments are supported by at least paragraphs [0020] - [0037] and [0046] - [0051] of the present Application. No new matter has been added.
"The rejection of Claims 22-29, 31-34, 36, 41, and 45-48 under 35 U.S.C. -º112 as failing to comply with the written description requirement is respectfully traversed.
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the present 35 U.S.C. -º112 rejection has been overcome.
'Further, Applicant respectfully submits that recitations in the present claims (e.g., Claims 45-47) are supported by at least paragraphs [0030] (e.g., "The processing element 28 may be configured to analyze the still and/or moving image and/or voice recording of the insurance applicant received via the communication element 24 to probablistically determine the personal or health-related characteristic" (emphasis added)) and [0051] (e.g., "(3) analyzing with the trained processing element the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional image of the insurance applicant to probablistically determine the personal and/or health-related characteristic for the insurance applicant; (4) using, by the processing element, the probablistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristic to verify information provided by the insurance applicant" (emphasis added)) of the present Application. '
(REMARKS, pp. 9-10).
However, the above-quoted arguments submitted January 9, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 9-10 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Materially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. The test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon "reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter." Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 112 heading above.
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted January 9, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed October 10, 2025 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the October 10, 2025 Non-Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• The Applicant argued:
"The rejection of Claims 22-29, 31-34, 36, 41, and 45-48 under 35 U.S.C. -º101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is respectfully traversed.
"The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A. []
"[T]hat the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes[;] Applicant respectfully disagrees.
'[] Applicant respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits that the present independent claims do not recite "insurance" and rather are directed to technical improvements in the technical field of health-related technology[].
"[T]hat the claims recite mental processes[;] Applicant respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits that the human mind is not equipped to perform the recitations of the present claims.
"[] Applicant continues to respectfully submit that Claim 45 of the present Application, as representative example, is analogous to Example 39 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. The Claim of Example 39 is subject matter eligible as not reciting a judicial exception and recites training a neural network in multiple stages. [] Claim 45 of the present Application recites a training a machine learning model in multiple stages in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims do not recite a judicial exception. [] Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are directed to technical improvements in the technical field of health-related technology[].
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the current 35 U.S.C. [] 101 rejection has been overcome at least under Step 2A, Prong 1[].
"[T]he present claims are subject-matter eligible under the second prong of Step 2A. []
"[T]hat any alleged judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application[;] Applicant respectfully disagrees.
'[T]hat the claims do not recite technical improvements recited in the present Application[;] Applicant respectfully disagrees as Claim 45, as representative example, requires only data from the user that is not obtained as a sample of bodily fluid or during a conventional medical review[]. [N]ew Claim 49 is added herein as reciting "analyze the user moving image data and the additional user health data without further data associated with the candidate user inputted to the machine learning model" (emphasis added).
"[] Applicant continues to respectfully submit that Claim 45 of the present Application, as representative example, is analogous to Claim 3 of Example 47 of the USPTO July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
"Similar to how Claim 3 of Example 47 trains a neural network, identifies network intrusions using the neural network, and takes remedial actions, the present claims train a machine learning model, analyze data inputted to the model based upon the training of the model, and output a probability that a candidate user actually has one or more health-related characteristics.
'[T]he claims recite a specific improvement over the prior art in the technical field of health-related technology. [P]aragraph [0003] of the present Application explains that "providers may require collecting samples of bodily fluids to assess an applicant's health status" while paragraph [0020] of the present Application explains that "machine learning techniques may be used to extract the relevant personal and/or health-related information ...from images and/or voice recordings of those applicants without needing to acquire samples of bodily fluids or conduct conventional medical reviews" (emphasis added).
'[P]aragraph [0037] of the present Application explains that "a video magnification system may use a short video of an applicant and extract the necessary health and personal data without the need for fluid samples or medical review. [T]he video may be used to calculate the applicant's pulse, and could evolve to detect medications or drug use through eye movements, and lead to other information such as glucose levels and other measurements normally attained through bodily fluid analysis . .. Also, the use of video magnification data may help prevent fraud by removing applicants' ability to enter fraudulent information and ensuring an applicant's identity."
"To solve at least the above technical problems and/or implement the above technical solutions, and in accordance with the specification of the present Application, Claim 45 describes training a model in multiple stages and outputting from the model a probability that a candidate user actually has one or more health-related characteristics[.]
'[I]n this case, "a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and .. the claim reflects the asserted improvement," which is sufficient to establish a practical application. []
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the current 35 U.S.C. -º101 rejection has been overcome at least under Step 2A. Prong 2[].
"[T]he present claims also satisfy Step 2B. Applicant respectfully submits that it is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art at least to perform the steps of Claim 45 [].
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the current 35 U.S.C. -º101 rejection has additionally or alternatively been overcome at least under Step 2B[].
"In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, all the claims now active in this application are believed to be in condition for allowance. Reconsideration and favorable action are respectfully solicited. "
(REMARKS, pp. 10-14).
However, the above-quoted arguments submitted January 9, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 10-14 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Substantially, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of 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). For example, the claims neither recite nor require "removing applicants' ability to enter fraudulent information and ensuring an applicant's identity" or "without needing to acquire samples of bodily fluids or conduct conventional medical reviews".
Regarding the Applicant's reference(s) to one or more Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, the Office notes that the examples are presented as hypothetical and only intended to be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth therein as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes.
In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); iv. Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747; vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database's functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59; vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For Step 2B, relying on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional, the claims in the present application are ineligible under Step 2B. For example, the courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. 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). The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20090177495 A1 by Abousy; Khalid et al. discloses SYSTEM, METHOD, AND DEVICE FOR PERSONAL MEDICAL CARE, INTELLIGENT ANALYSIS, AND DIAGNOSIS.
USPGPub No. US 20100241464 A1 by Amigo; Andrew J. et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SENSOR-ENHANCED RECOVERY EVALUATION.
USPGPub No. US 20100241465 A1 by Amigo; Andrew J. et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SENSOR-ENHANCED HEALTH EVALUATION.
USPAT No. US 9411780 B1 to Awad; Nadim et al. discloses Employing device sensor data to determine user characteristics.
USPGPub No. US 20090055227 A1 by Bakos; Thomas L. discloses Risk Assessment Company.
USPGPub No. US 20040153362 A1 by Bauer, Alan Rex et al. discloses Monitoring system for determining and communicating a cost of insurance.
USPGPub No. US 20090240524 A1 by Bluth; Charles P. discloses COMMUNITY BASED MANAGED HEALTH KIOSK AND REMOTE DIAGNOSIS SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20140129261 A1 by Bothwell; Peter T. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF INSURANCE CLASSIFICATION OF ENTITIES.
USPGPub No. US 20070174096 A1 by Cain; Steven J. et al. discloses Systems and methods for providing health insurance coverage.
USPGPub No. US 20120290330 A1 by Coleman; Mark S. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WEB-BASED INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION.
USPGPub No. US 20130060582 A1 by Cutino; Brian M. et al. discloses UNDERWRITING SYSTEM AND METHOD ASSOCIATED WITH A CIVIC IMPROVEMENT PLATFORM.
USPGPub No. US 20060058603 A1 by Dave; Ashok et al. discloses Medical media file management system and method.
USPAT No. US 9818158 B1 to Devereaux; Ramsey et al. discloses Utilizing credit and informatic data for insurance underwriting purposes.
USPGPub No. US 20180285976 A1 by Dye; Tammy et al. discloses METHOD, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT AND SYSTEM FOR PROACTIVE INSURANCE MARKETING.
USPGPub No. US 20150235001 A1 by Fouts; Terry discloses System and Method for Scoring Health Related Risk.
USPGPub No. US 20130090955 A1 by GORE; Adrian et al. discloses MANAGING AN INSURANCE PLAN.
USPAT No. US 9866673 B2 to Gabel; Gershon discloses Methods and systems of managing accident communications over a network.
USPGPub No. US 20150287143 A1 by Gabriel; Matthew F. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING UNDERWRITING USING A RISK ORDER APPROACH.
USPGPub No. US 20080183508 A1 by Harker; Phillip E. et al. discloses Methods for Real-Time Underwriting.
USPGPub No. US 20140180980 A1 by Hido; Shohei et al. discloses INFORMATION IDENTIFICATION METHOD, PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20130290023 A1 by Hight; H. Thomas et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR UNDERWRITING INSURANCE POLICIES BASED ON CARDIOVASCULAR RISK.
USPGPub No. US 20120330687 A1 by Hilario; Shawn P. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA RELATED TO LAST SURVIVOR LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES.
USPGPub No. US 20150317522 A1 by IKEDA; Hiroo discloses APPEARANCE PRESENTATION SYSTEM, METHOD, AND PROGRAM.
USPGPub No. US 20110213625 A1 by JOAO; RAYMOND ANTHONY discloses Apparatus and method for processing and/or for providing healthcare information and/or helathcare-related information.
USPGPub No. US 20080154651 A1 by Kenefick; Timothy P. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR UTILIZING INTERRELATED COMPUTERIZED PREDICTIVE MODELS.
USPAT No. US 10156848 B1 to Konrardy; Blake et al. discloses Autonomous vehicle routing during emergencies.
USPGPub No. US 20150278449 A1 by LaBorde; David discloses PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION VOICE DATA AND / OR TRANSCRIPT OF VOICE DATA CAPTURE, PROCESSING AND SUBMISSION.
USPGPub No. US 20150281949 A1 by LaBorde; David discloses PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION IMAGE CAPTURE, PROCESSING AND SUBMISSION FROM A MOBILE DEVICE.
USPAT No. US 10360634 B2 to Lekas; Stephen Nicholas discloses Virtual home inspection.
USPGPub No. US 20020087364 A1 by Lerner, Andrew S. et al. discloses System and method for enabling real time underwriting of insurance policies.
USPGPub No. US 20150363717 A1 by Lim; Ben J. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING OF UAV BASED DATA FOR RISK MITIGATION AND LOSS CONTROL.
USPGPub No. US 20090135009 A1 by Little; Thomas DC et al. discloses LIFT MONITORING SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPAT No. US 8355933 B2 to Loy; Philip R. et al. discloses Method and apparatus for increasing liquid assets available to at least partially fund living expenses at an assisted living facility.
USPGPub No. US 20150269317 A1 by Marcum; Cameron et al. discloses METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING AND EVALUATING MODIFIED DATA STRUCTURES.
USPGPub No. US 20150006206 A1 by Mdeway; Nader discloses Consumer-Centered Risk Analysis and Insurance Purchasing Systems and Methods.
USPGPub No. US 20110040582 A1 by Mullins; Kieran discloses ONLINE SYSTEM AND METHOD OF INSURANCE UNDERWRITING.
USPAT No. US 9262728 B2 to Nuggehalli; Jayasimha et al. discloses Auto insurance system integration.
USPGPub No. US 20150026175 A1 by Nuggehalli; Jayasimha et al. discloses HEALTHCARE SYSTEM INTEGRATION.
USPGPub No. US 20110161116 A1 by Peak; David F. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GEOCODED INSURANCE PROCESSING USING MOBILE DEVICES.
USPGPub No. US 20110213628 A1 by Peak; David F. et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING A SAFETY SCORE ASSOCIATED WITH A USER LOCATION.
USPGPub No. US 20070118398 A1 by Perls; Thomas T. discloses System and method for estimating life expectancy and providing customized advice for improving life expectancy.
USPAT No. US 9235813 B1 to Qian; Hai et al. discloses General framework for cross-validation of machine learning algorithms using SQL on distributed systems.
USPGPub No. US 20120330692 A1 by READ; Katherine et al. discloses System and Method for Processing Data Related to Insurance Coverage for Multiple Risks.
USPGPub No. US 20130035962 A1 by Ranicar, III; James A. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA RELATED TO GROUP BENEFIT INSURANCE HAVING CRITICAL ILLNESS COVERAGE.
USPGPub No. US 20130151283 A1 by Ranicar, III; James A. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA RELATED TO GROUP BENEFIT INSURANCE HAVING CRITICAL ILLNESS COVERAGE.
USPGPub No. US 20160259994 A1 by Ravindran; Arun et al. discloses DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING USING CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS.
USPGPub No. US 20110125651 A1 by Reynolds; Leslie Ann et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADMINISTERING LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED PRIOR TO UNDERWRITING.
USPGPub No. US 20110125536 A1 by Reynolds; Leslie Ann et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADMINISTERING INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED BEFORE COMPREHENSIVE UNDERWRITING.
USPGPub No. US 20110125537 A1 by Reynolds; Leslie Ann et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR APPLICATION PROCESSING AND POLICY ADMINISTRATION FOR INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED BEFORE COMPREHENSIVE UNDERWRITING.
USPGPub No. US 20130223694 A1 by Ricanek, JR.; Karl et al. discloses Demographic Analysis of Facial Landmarks.
USPAT No. US 8705875 B1 to Ricanek, Jr.; Karl discloses Demographic analysis of facial landmarks.
USPGPub No. US 20140244317 A1 by Roberts; Lucas Raymond et al. discloses Computerized System and Method for Pre-Filling of Insurance Data Using Third Party Sources.
USPGPub No. US 20140330594 A1 by Roberts; Lucas Raymond et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF INSURANCE CLASSIFICATION AND UNDERWRITING DETERMINATION FOR ENTITIES.
USPGPub No. US 20130035964 A1 by Roscoe; Michael J. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA PROCESSING FOR TERM LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED BEFORE COMPREHENSIVE UNDERWRITING.
USPGPub No. US 20150019231 A1 by Sadler; Errick et al. discloses METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SHARING MEDICAL INFORMATION.
USPGPub No. US 20120123806 A1 by Schumann, JR.; Douglas D. et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING A SAFETY SCORE ASSOCIATED WITH A USER LOCATION.
USPGPub No. US 20050102172 A1 by Sirmans, James R. JR. discloses System and method for evaluating insurance member activity and pricing insurance products.
USPGPub No. US 20150025917 A1 by Stempora; Jeffrey discloses System and method for determining an underwriting risk, risk score, or price of insurance using cognitive information.
USPAT No. US 8401878 B2 to Stender; Mark et al. discloses Method and system for connecting an insured to an insurer using a mobile device.
USPGPub No. US 20090210256 A1 by Upadhyayula; Prakash et al. discloses System For Real-Time Online Health Care Insurance Underwriting.
USPAT No. US 6026364 A to Whitworth; Brian L. discloses System and method for replacing a liability with insurance and for analyzing data and generating documents pertaining to a premium financing mechanism paying for such insurance.
USPAT No. US 6009402 A to Whitworth; Brian L. discloses System and method for predicting, comparing and presenting the cost of self insurance versus insurance and for creating bond financing when advantageous.
USPGPub No. US 20090119133 A1 by Yeransian; Luke W. et al. discloses METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR POLICY UNDERWRITING AND RISK MANAGEMENT OVER A NETWORK.
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 SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Tuesday from 10:30 AM to 6:30 PM EST.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 02/02/2026