DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Claim 13: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of acts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps of receiving, at a first graphical user interface (GUI), selection of at least one available version of a risk relationship resource model; retrieving, by a computer processor of the back-end application computer server from a risk relationship resource model data store associated with an encrypted database management system, information about the selected risk relationship resource model including a model version identifier, a period definition comprising a pair of specified dates or a collective period term, and risk-related information, wherein the risk relationship resource model data store contains electronic records associated with risk relationship resource models, each electronic record including an electronic record identifier; displaying the retrieved information on the first GUI; receiving, from a remote user device, at least one adjustment to the retrieved information; generating an adjusted risk relationship resource model including the adjustment to the retrieved information, wherein the adjustment to the retrieved information includes historical experience period information of a trigger, a rating base and a base type information, the historical period information aggregated for multiple ground-up risk relationship claims and for an individual risk relationship claim and at least one of: allocated loss adjustment expenses information, benchmark information, development pattern weights per line of business, layers selection information and trend information, wherein adjusting the retrieved version of the selected risk information resource model; executing the adjusted risk relationship resource model, including an experience rating process and an exposure rating process, to generate a prospective resource amount based in part on the period definition and the risk-related information, wherein execution of the exposure rating process comprises: identifying a portfolio of similar but not identical risk-related information, simulating, using the similar but not identical risk-related information, expected losses as a result of a specific event as representative of the generated prospective resource amount; storing, into the risk relationship resource model data store, information about the adjusted risk relationship resource model, including an updated model version identifier; displaying, on a second GUI, one or more selectable risk relationship resource model elements; receiving selection of a first selectable risk relationship resource model element of the one or more selectable risk relationship resource model elements; generating a pop-up window on the second GUI in response to the received selection of the first selectable risk relationship resource model element, wherein the pop-up window presents one of a data source and a result table and the pop-up window is adapted to receive additional data reducing unnecessary communications and a required amount of network messaging bandwidth; receiving additional data in the pop-up window re-configuring the risk relationship resource model based on the received additional data and transmitting data to the remote user device to support interactive actuarial interface displays that collect, calculate, and provide information, including the prospective resource amount, via security features, wherein the information in the risk relationship resource model data store includes, for a plurality of average loss dates, all of: (i) benchmark exposure trend information, (ii) user selected exposure trend information, (iii) benchmark frequency trend information, (iv) user selected frequency trend information, (v) benchmark severity trend information, and (vi) user selected severity trend information. In order words, the claim describe a process for collecting information, comparing and analyzing it, and using rules to identify options displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”), or in the alternative, the organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic practices including insurance. These limitations fall under the “mental processes” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” groups (Step 2A1-Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using computer server, display, device (processors), and communication port. The processors and communication port in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions. These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The display (GUI) is recited at a high level of generality with the only required function of accepting user inputs and displaying information, which is a well-known routine function of displays. Reducing an amount of transmitted messages and used network messaging bandwidth by adjusting the retrieve version of the selected risk relationship (by utilizing information from prior version of pricing models to customize reinsurance pricing models) is also a generic computer function. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, 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 Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 18 recite corresponding system and non-transitory computer-readable medium equivalents of claim 13. This claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 13, supra.
Claims 2-4, 14-16 and 19-20 recite wherein the risk relationship resource model is a reinsurance pricing model and the prospective resource amount comprises a prospective premium: wherein the information in the risk relationship resource model data store includes at least one of: (i) a reinsurance treaty identifier, (ii) historical experience period information, (iii) expiring reinsurance program information, (iv) allocated loss adjustment expenses information, (v) prospective reinsurance program information, (vi) model setup information, (vii) layers selection information, and (viii) benchmark information; wherein the risk-related information includes at least one of: (i) a layer attachment, (ii) a frequency trend status, (iii) benchmark layer amounts, and (iv) benchmark count amounts.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 13. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 13 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 13, supra.
Claims 6, 8-12 recite wherein the interactive actuarial interface displays provide calculated experience rating information, including at least one of: (i) a plurality of time periods, (ii) an evaluation date, (iii) multiple weights for sums and averages, (iv) trended reported counts, (v) selected trended estimated ultimate counts, and (vi) selected trended estimated ultimate frequency; wherein the interactive actuarial interface displays provide calculated experience rating information for nominal claim count data, including at least one of: (i) a plurality of time periods, (ii) an evaluation date, (iii) a nominal written rating base, (iv) multiple weights for sums and averages, (v) nominal reported counts, (vi) selected nominal estimated ultimate counts, and (vii) a selected nominal estimated ultimate frequency; wherein the interactive actuarial interface displays provide calculated experience rating information for nominal loss dollar data, including at least one of: (i) a plurality of time periods, (ii) an evaluation date, (iii) a nominal written rating base, (iv) multiple weights for sums and averages, (v) a nominal paid loss, (vi) a nominal reported loss, (vii) a selected nominal estimated ultimate loss, (viii) a selected nominal estimated ultimate loss rate (ix) selected estimated ultimate nominal counts, and (x) an implied estimated ultimate nominal severity; wherein the interactive actuarial interface displays provide calculated experience rating summary information, including at least one of: (i) an earned premium, (ii) an exposure trend, (iii) selection values, and (iv) implied estimated values; wherein the interactive actuarial interface displays provide calculated exposure rating information, including at least one of: (i) an attachment type, (ii) an attachment value, (iii) a limit value, and (iv) a percent of premium value; wherein the interactive actuarial interface displays provide calculated exposure rating information, including at least one of: (i) layers exposure rated only values, (ii) a prospective subject base, (iii) class and sub-class information, and (iv) a distribution curve type.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 13. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 13 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 13, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims cannot be considered as falling within the “mental processes” grouping because the claimed subject matter is both not performed in the human mind and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. In particular, Applicant cites states that “the claims are directed to generating an adjusted model including adjustments to retrieved information including historical experience period information of a trigger, a rating base, and a base type information, where the historical experience period information is aggregated for multiple ground-up risk relationship claims and for an individual risk relationship claim. The adjustments are further made to at least one of allocated loss adjustment expenses information, benchmark information, development pattern weights per line of business, layers selection information and trend information. These adjustments are not something that is performed in the human mind and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the limitations of the independent claims are not directed to a Mental Process under Prong One.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The aforementioned generation of an adjusted model can be performed using pen and paper. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention does not belong to “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. In particular, Applicant asserts that the claims describe “automatically updating a model using information from prior versions of the model, and optimizing user interactions.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to insurance risk modeling which is a fundamental economic principle. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Under Step 2A-Prong Two, Applicant describes how entering information into a spreadsheet application can be time consuming and error prone, and the need to re-enter data into the spreadsheet on a periodic basis. To resolve this, applicant’s invention allegedly provide for an improvement to conventional model update processes that are error prone and time consuming.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated earlier, the claimed invention is an abstract idea. The claimed invention simply “automates” manual processes using conventional technology. Claimed invention does not recite any elements that individually, or as an ordered combination, transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of that idea. “At best, the claim[] describe[s] the automation of [a] fundamental economic concept . . . through the use of generic-computer functions.” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363. It is well settled, though, that automating conventional activities using generic technology does not amount to an inventive concept. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (explaining that “if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on . . . a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility”) (internal alteration, citation, and quotations omitted); Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1367 (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ziade et al., (USPAP 2008/0052137) teaches a method for providing a risk scoring engine user interface.
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 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 OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691