DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 1/20/2026. Claims 1, 23 and 24 have been amended. Claims 1, 5-17, 19 and 21-24 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites the same limitations as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5-17, 19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, device claims 1, 5-17, 19 and 21-23 are directed to a plurality of sensors; a storage and circuitry, while method claim 24 is directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a machine and process, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite risk transfer, including storing, measuring, assigning, classifying, detecting, assessing, populating, enriching, predicting, capturing, and generating steps.
The limitations of storing, measuring, assigning, classifying, detecting, assessing, populating, enriching, predicting, capturing, and generating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite storing transfer portfolio data including at least a relationship between a risk source, a risk exposure measure, and a risk exposed object, wherein the risk exposure measure is a physical probability measure of an actual future occurrence of a risk-event having a defined measurable impact on said risk exposed object, measuring characteristics parameters of a plurality of objects, and the characteristics parameters being measured and transferred; assigning the measured characteristics parameters to a profile associated with the plurality of objects; classifying the plurality of objects into a plurality of classes based on the measured characteristics parameters, each class being associated with a plurality of risk categories, wherein the profile includes a plurality of sections, each section associated with the corresponding class; detecting and assessing asset characteristics parameters, the asset characteristics parameters being automatically triggering by an index-data structure, accessing parameter attributes for providing the asset characteristics parameters, at least comprising risk-related asset characteristics assets and asset classes of a selected object, location of the assets, and activities of the selected object associated with an asset or asset class; in response to lacking or incomplete assessing of the asset characteristics parameters, populating and enriching the index-data structure based at least on closest proximity processing steps, wherein occurring risk events and variations in the asset characteristics parameters are dynamically monitored by detecting, measuring, and triggering associated parameter values; predicting impact measures based on event parameter values of time-dependent series of occurrences of physical impacting risk-events, wherein the occurrences of the physical impacting risk-events are measured based on predefined threshold-values of the event parameters, and wherein the impacts of the physical risk-events to a specific asset are measured based on impact parameters associated with the asset, capturing risk event parameters to automatically identify risks of assets based on at least a location of the asset, and assess by the machine-based exposure data intelligence an exposure database comprising a plurality of data records holding asset characteristics parameter of assets at least with assigned geographic location parameters, clustering stored assets of the exposure database related to the assigned geographic location parameters, the asset characteristics parameters being contained within search engine instances using a search engine with a cluster configuration, the search engine being realized as an ElasticSearch engine leveraging clusters of ElasticSearch containers, and wherein different data records of the exposure database having the same or close geographic location parameters are matched and risk-exposures of a specific asset of a unit are aligned with the risk-exposures of the data records having the same or close geographic location parameters, generating a transfer cover value based on (i) the measured characteristics parameters and (ii) the relationship between the risk source, the risk exposure measure, and the risk exposed object of the transfer portfolio data stored; assigning the generated transfer cover value to the corresponding section of the profile for the risk exposed object; and generating a risk score value to the corresponding section of the profile based on the assigned transfer cover value, the risk score value as resulting numerical value being translated into visual information, and thus providing an interactive portfolio steering by inter-actively assigning and adjusting risk-transfer covers to the transfer portfolio data, wherein the visual information comprise at least information to factors of location and attributes and activities, all factors being weighted according to the contribution to an overall risk to a risk category.
That is, other than reciting a plurality of sensors comprising at least wired sensors connected to a data interface and/or PLCs (Programmable Logic Controller) controlling a plant or electronic steered devices, storage, circuitry, a network interface, a data-transmission network, and machine-based intelligence, the claim limitations merely cover fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and commercial interactions, including business relations, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a plurality of sensors comprising at least wired sensors connected to a data interface and/or PLCs (Programmable Logic Controller) controlling a plant or electronic steered devices or telematic measuring devices, storage, circuitry, a network interface, a data-transmission network, and machine-based intelligence. The plurality of sensors comprising at least wired sensors connected to a data interface and/or PLCs (Programmable Logic Controller) controlling a plant or electronic steered devices or telematic measuring devices, storage, circuitry, a network interface, a data-transmission network, and machine-based intelligence in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 element of a plurality of sensors comprising at least wired sensors connected to a data interface and/or PLCs (Programmable Logic Controller) controlling a plant or electronic steered devices or telematic measuring devices, storage, circuitry, a network interface, a data-transmission network, and machine-based intelligence amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 6 and recite an additional monitoring step. Claims 7 and 8 recite a search engine for leveraging. Claims 9 and 10 further describe the circuitry including unit activities identifier application programming interface (API) collecting characteristics parameters. Claims 11-13 further describe the risk value, the attributes, assets of the object. Claims 14-17, 19 and 21 recite additional linking, providing, identifying, generating, and assigning steps. Claims 22 and 23 further describe the classes and risk type. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a plurality of sensors comprising at least wired sensors connected to a data interface and/or PLCs (Programmable Logic Controller) controlling a plant or electronic steered devices or telematic measuring devices, storage, circuitry, a network interface, a data-transmission network, and machine-based intelligence.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed on page 6, lines 17-28 of the specification, “Finally, it is an object of the present invention to propose a processor-driven, digital platform which comprises a user interface, which can be operated by means of terminals via a data-transmission network for users, comprising data input fields for inputting data relating to the object of a risk-transfer, which is available and can be used as a one-stop, end-to-end process for conducting, monitoring and adapting risk-transfers or portfolios of risk-transfers by the user independently of the location or the desired object of a contract (service). In particular, it is a further object of the present invention to propose a processor-driven, computer-based networking platform which comprises a universal user interface which can be adapted flexibly to variable risk-transfer conditions and risk-transfer types of an automated binding process without changes which are visible to the service user.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that the pending claims are not (and cannot be) directed to "organizing human activity" because the features recited therein are not directed to "fundamental economic principles," "commercial or legal interactives," or "managing personal behavior." In order for the claims to fall into the "organizing human activity" category, the claims must actually be directed to the aforementioned practices.
Furthermore, the Memorandum sets forth that: Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis). Thus, just because a claim may involve an exception does not mean it should automatically be rejected under § 101. Instead, the claims are directed to a technical system that allows automated risk monitoring and measurement of physical assets based on measurement parameters measured by associated measuring devices. This automation is achieved by adjusting the system to the measured parameters as well as the selection of the measurement parameters used, their classification by a system intelligence and automatic assignment to risk measurement areas and classes, and the provision of a risk measurement value based on physical measurement parameters (score or index measurement value). As a result, since the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.
Solely for the sake of argument, even if it could be considered that the claims include an abstract idea (which they do not in this case), the claims are still directed to a practical application and recite significantly more. The Memorandum emphasizes that: The analysis in Step 2A Prong Two considers the claim as a whole. The way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception. Instead, the analysis should take into consideration all the claim limitations and how these limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application.
Thus, taking the claims as a whole, the claimed invention is clearly directed to a "practical application." Paragraph [0033] of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0374270 (the printed publication of the present application) recites the following: Activities describe what the unit/business does, allowing for a much more granular assessment than usual in risk-transfer systems, where units/businesses are classified in broader categories. For each of the broader categories normally used, the inventive platform 1 defines a list of activities. Each activity has a different inherent risk, e.g.: Units/businesses not working with sharp objects (contrary to e.g. restaurants) have a lower risk normally associated with the use of sharp objects such as knives. An inherent risk cannot be changed, it can only be mitigated.
Mitigation comes from the exogenous and endogenous factors and are applied to the inherent risk. This process of matching the relevant exogenous and endogenous factors to the inherent risk, is a process that requires advanced risk knowledge usually not present in SME, i.e. the risk- exposed units (21,22,...,2i). The independent claims provide a new granularity in measuring the overall risk- measure of an object. Without the granular parameter structure, the applied clustering would not be possible. Further, the claims have a clear and specific real-world embodiment of parameter dependence, which is coupled to a specific realization. Thus, when considered as a whole, it is clear that the claims are directed to a practical application. For instance, the independent claims are clearly directed to linking a use of a digital platform to a physical reality. Specifically, the independent claims are directed to a use of a digital platform accessible by means of network-enabled devices via a data transmission network comprising a digital system providing a digital channel for automating the process and a digital platform comprising wired sensors connected to a data interface and/or PLCs (Programmable Logic Controller) controlling a plant or electronic steered devices measuring the asset characteristics parameters being and transferring the measuring parameters to the digital system over a network interface via the data-transmission network.
In Claim 1, the link is realized by sensors which are dynamically monitored and triggered in their contribution. Means of measurement sensors monitor condition of physical object (physical real-world objects) by aggregating and classifying them based on the transmitted measurement parameters on the basis of the probability of occurrence, and measure impact for a physical event. As previously noted, the claimed features have the technical effect that they allow a complete automation of the measurement of the impacts by means of a new technical structure, which in particular allows an optimized infrastructure with minimal resources on site. As a result, the pending claims are directed to a practical application. Furthermore, the claims also include significantly more. In particular, the pending claims represent techniques that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial note, independent method claim 24 fails to recite any computing components implementing the plurality of method steps. As a result, claim 24 fails to recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As described on page 1 of Applicant’s specification “the present invention relates to intelligent, automated and optimized technologies for inter-active steering, monitoring and adapting/optimizing of risk-transfer products. More particularly, it relates to systems for automation of underwriting, risk management, risk-transfer and risk portfolio steering and signaling involving an improved composing and configuring of products for a user interactively.”
Additionally, as described on page 2, “As mentioned, risk-transfer processes and underwriting involves the evaluation, measurement and prediction of risks of risk-exposed units or entities. Underwriting often includes determining a monetary transfer amount (premium) that needs to be charged to tune and balance the amount of risk transferred with the monetary amount. Traditionally, insurance companies typically have their own set of underwriting guidelines to help determine whether or not the company should accept the risk. The information used to evaluate the risk of an applicant for insurance can depend on the type of coverage involved.”
Moreover, page 6 recites, that “The invention should enable automated underwriting (UW) and pricing of risk-transfer covers with increased efficiency by (i) automatically providing base rates to support pricing of SME risk-transfers, (ii) using traditional and novel data sources, and (iii) simplifying the quotation process by reducing the overall number of questions and applying behavioral science.” Moreover, the application is replete with additional examples of similar risk transfer.
Similarly, independent claims 1 and 24 recite automated risk-transfer, storing transfer portfolio data including at least a relationship between a risk source, a risk exposure measure, and a risk exposed object, wherein the risk exposure measure is a physical probability measure of an actual future occurrence of a risk-event having a defined measurable impact on said risk exposed object, wherein different data records of the exposure database having the same or close geographic location parameters are matched and risk-exposures of a specific asset of a unit are aligned with the risk-exposures of the data records having the same or close geographic location parameters, generate a transfer cover value based on (i) the measured characteristics parameters and (ii) the relationship between the risk source, the risk exposure measure, and the risk exposed object of the transfer portfolio data stored in the storage, assign the generated transfer cover value to a corresponding section of the profile for the risk exposed object, and generate a risk score value to the corresponding section of the profile based on the assigned transfer cover value, the risk score value as resulting numerical value being translated into visual information, and thus providing an interactive portfolio steering by inter-actively assigning and adjusting risk-transfer covers to the transfer portfolio data, wherein the visual information comprise at least information to factors of location and asset characteristics and activities, all factors being weighted according to a contribution to an overall risk by the respective risk category.
As such, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claim limitations merely cover fundamental economic principles or practices, including insurance and mitigating risk, and commercial interactions, including business relations thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, a plurality of sensors comprising at least wired sensors connected to a data interface and/or PLCs (Programmable Logic Controller) controlling a plant or electronic steered devices or telematic measuring devices merely function as obvious data gathering mechanisms. This type of data gathering is similar to that seen in Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014), which found that a scanner using known OCR technology was not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include a plurality of sensors, a network interface via a data-transmission network to storage, circuitry, and a machine-based intelligence.
The plurality of sensors, network interface via a data-transmission network to storage, circuitry, and a machine-based intelligence in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., a plurality of sensors, a network interface via a data-transmission network to storage, circuitry, and a machine-based intelligence). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite “in response to lacking or incomplete assessing of the asset characteristics parameters, populate and enrich the index-data structure by machine-based intelligence based at least on closest proximity processing steps, wherein occurring risk events and variations in the asset characteristics parameters are dynamically monitored by detecting, measuring, and triggering associated parameter values”, which is merely considered a complex mathematical exercise, thus directed to an abstract idea. The claimed use of the machine-based intelligence and machine learning does not seem to involve anything other than the application of a known technique in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity.
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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights