Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received April 29, 2025. Claims 1, 14, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and examined.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
As to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the present claims are similar to Example 39 stating that “[s]imilarly, the present claims (a) do not recite mathematical concepts, (b) do not recite a mental process as the features are not practically performed in the human mind in real-time, and (c) do not recite any method of organizing human activity and rather are directed to an intelligent system fundamentally tied into computing technology, namely an intelligent system for crowdsourced online environments and platforms”. Examiner disagrees. Unlike Examples 39 and 48, the present claims are not addressing a problem within the technology of intelligent systems for crowdsourced online environments and platforms. The claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims in the instant application include an abstract idea, and when considered as a whole, the claims (independent and dependent) do not integrate the exception into a practical application, and merely add the words “apply it” to the “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). The additional elements do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. And unlike Examples 40 and 42, simply relying on a computer to perform routine tasks or calculations more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible as seen in the present claims. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”); cf. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding a computer-implemented method patent eligible where the claims recite a specific manipulation of a general-purpose computer such that the claims do not rely on a “computer network operating in its normal, expected manner”). As elaborated in the rejection below, using one or more processors is simply “apply it” using generic computer components rather than integrating the judicial exception into a Beard practical application. The rejection is thereby maintained.
As to the rejection of claims 1- 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is thereby withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an intelligent adjuster assignment system comprising: a crowdsourcing platform; one or more processors; one or more memory components communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and the crowdsourcing platform; and machine readable instructions stored in the one or more memory components that cause the intelligent adjuster assignment system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: receive an insurance claim during a period of time; determine, using an artificial intelligence (AI) model, a plurality of real-time adjuster priority scores based on one or more weighted parameters as implemented by the AI model, the one or more weighted parameters trained based on an AI training algorithm, the AI model configured to adjust the one or more weighted parameters to reduce error associated with determination of the real-time adjustor priority scores for more efficient and intelligent execution, for a plurality of adjusters of an adjuster pool on the crowdsourcing platform during the period of time prior to allowing one or more of the plurality of adjusters each associated with a respective real-time adjuster priority score of the plurality of real-time adjuster priority scores access to the insurance claim; determine a top-ranked adjuster from the plurality of adjusters based on the plurality of real-time adjuster priority scores during the period of time prior to allowing the one or more of the plurality of adjusters access to the insurance claim and based on an association with one or more least recent assignments such that adjusters remaining active on the crowdsourcing platform for longer are prioritized; automatically assign via an assignment the insurance claim to the top-ranked adjuster during the period of time prior to allowing one or more of the plurality of adjusters access to the insurance claim to allow the top-ranked adjuster access to the insurance claim, wherein the assignment comprises access to the insurance claim; and allow the top-ranked adjuster access to the insurance claim after the assignment such that the one or more of the plurality of adjusters not assigned to the insurance claim are not allowed access to the insurance claim. The portion in bold recites an abstract idea and is akin to the subject matter groupings of “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are considered as follows:
“An intelligent adjuster assignment system comprising: a crowdsourcing platform; one or more processors; one or more memory components communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and the crowdsourcing platform; and machine readable instructions stored in the one or more memory components that cause the intelligent adjuster assignment system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors:” This is merely “apply it” and amounts to the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receive an insurance claim during a period of time;” This is an extra solution activity, akin to data gathering.
“using an artificial intelligence (AI) model…as implemented by the AI model…trained based on an AI training algorithm” This is merely “apply it” and amounts to the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
(Step 2B) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of job assignment, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware. The instant recited claims including additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (artificial intelligence).
Analysis of dependent claims 2-13, 15-16, and 18-20, recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 2-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE S KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between M-F 10am-2pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Gart may be reached at (571)-273-3955. 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.
/IRENE KANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
5/16/2026
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights