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 .
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of October 6, 2025. Applicant’s arguments have been considered.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1–20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Michael Anderson.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s communication filed October 6, 2025, including amendments to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), 35 U.S.C. § 101, and 35 U.S.C. § 103, has been fully considered.
Regarding the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that amending independent claims 1, 8, and 15 to replace “a service” with “insurance coverage” provides proper antecedent basis, aligns the claims with the specification, and distinctly defines the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Regarding the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Virdhagriswaran in view of McConnell and Elad have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the cited prior art combination does not teach or render obvious the specific operational workflow of generating a re-quotation for insurance coverage that includes a difference from a previously non-binding quotation, and inputting both the previously non-binding quotation and the re-quotation into a state regression model to calculate a likelihood of binding. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Applicant’s arguments that the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained for the following reasons.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application): Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they address a “technology problem” of prioritizing a large number of non-binding insurance quotations, and that the claims use information to take “meaningful limitations” such as calculating a likelihood of binding, determining a score, and transmitting a ranked lead list to a remote device. Applicant compares the instant claims to Example 46 of the October 2019 PEG Update (injection molding / animal routing).
This argument is unpersuasive. First, prioritizing sales leads and calculating the probability of a customer binding an insurance policy is a fundamental economic practice and a method of organizing human activity (a business problem), not a technological problem.
Second, the comparison to Example 46 is misplaced. In Example 46, the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application because the data is used to physically control a specific machine (e.g., controlling an injection molding apparatus or physically operating a gate control mechanism to route animals). In contrast, the instant claims merely use the calculated data to “transmit, via a network, a ranked lead list to a remote device to cause the remote device to output the ranked lead list.” Transmitting data over a network and outputting/displaying data on a remote device are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. Under MPEP 2106.05(d), mere data gathering, data transmission, and data output constitute insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not effect a transformation of a particular article, nor do they improve the functioning of the computer itself (e.g., reducing memory usage, improving processing speed at the hardware level). The claims merely use generic computer components as a tool to perform the abstract business practice of prioritizing insurance leads.
Step 2B (Significantly More): Applicant argues that the ordered combination of elements provides an efficient or improved system, and that steps such as generating a re-quotation, inputting the quotations into a state regression model, calculating a likelihood of binding, and transmitting the list amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This argument is unpersuasive. The steps Applicant points to as providing “significantly more” (generating quotes, applying a regression model, scoring, and transmitting) are the abstract idea itself (the mathematical concepts and the organization of human activity). An abstract idea cannot supply the inventive concept necessary to transform an ineligible claim into an eligible one. When the abstract idea is set aside, the only remaining elements are generic computer components (e.g., “one or more computer devices,” “a processor,” “a non-transitory memory,” “a data repository,” “a network,” and “a remote device”) invoked at a high level of generality to perform their basic, conventional functions of storing, processing, and transmitting data. Applying an abstract idea on a generic computer does not amount to significantly more under Alice/Mayo.
Accordingly, the claims remain directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Note on Double Patenting: While the prior art rejections have been withdrawn, the claims remain unpatentable over the applicant’s own prior patents. New/maintained rejections under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) over U.S. Patent No. 11,138,669 and U.S. Patent No. 10,482,536 are set forth in the claim rejection section of this Office Action.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
Statutory Basis
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321© or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
Rejection I: Claims 1–20 over U.S. Patent No. 11,138,669
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1–11 and 21–30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,138,669 (hereinafter “'669 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader variants of the '669 Patent claims directed to the same inventive concept — prioritizing insurance re-quotation leads using a state regression model.
Independent Claim Comparison
The following table illustrates the correspondence between instant Claim 1 and '669 Patent Claim 1:
Limitation
Instant Application Claim 1
'669 Patent Claim 1
System structure
“one or more computer devices comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory device”
“one or more computer devices communicatively coupled to the insurance quotation data repository, the one or more computer devices comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory device”
Data repository
“a data repository communicatively coupled to the one or more computer devices”
“an insurance quotation data repository storing information corresponding to a plurality of historical previously unclosed insurance quotations that did not result in a sale”
Lead list generation
“automatically generate a lead list using a plurality of previously non-binding quotations…the lead list including a plurality of leads”
“generate an insurance lead list, based on the plurality of historical previously unclosed insurance quotations”
Re-quotation
“generate a re-quotation for insurance coverage for each of the plurality of leads included in the lead list, wherein the re-quotation includes a difference from a previously non-binding quotation…wherein the difference comprises at least one of an adjustment in offered insurance coverage and a reduction in cost”
“generate a re-quotation for insurance coverage for each lead included in the insurance lead list, wherein the re-quotation includes a difference from a previously unclosed insurance quotation, and wherein the difference comprises at least one of an increase in offered insurance coverage and a reduction in cost”
Model input
“input the previously non-binding quotation and the re-quotation for each of the plurality of leads included in the lead list into a state regression model”
[Implicit — model uses “information associated with the re-quotation”]
Calculate likelihood
“calculate a likelihood of binding for each of the plurality of leads included in the lead list by executing the state regression model, wherein the state regression model corresponds to a state of residence of each of the plurality of leads in the lead list”
“calculate a likelihood of binding for each lead included in the insurance lead list using a state regression model based on information associated with the re-quotation, wherein the state regression model corresponds to a state of residence of each lead included in the insurance lead list”
Score/Ranking
“determine a score for each of the plurality of leads using the state regression model based on the likelihood of binding, wherein the score of each lead is determined in relation to other leads on the lead list”
“determine a score for each lead included in the insurance lead list based on the likelihood of binding calculated by the state regression model, wherein the score for each lead is determined in relation to other leads on the insurance lead list”
Transmit
“automatically transmit, via a network, a ranked lead list to a remote device to cause the remote device to output the ranked lead list, wherein the ranked lead list includes the plurality of leads associated with a ranking range”
“transmit, via a network, a first portion of the insurance lead list to a first remote network device and a second portion of the insurance lead list to a second device, wherein the first portion…includes lead data records associated with a first ranking range and the second portion…includes lead data records associated with a second ranking range”
Analysis — Claim 1
Instant Claim 1 is not patentably distinct from '669 Patent Claim 1. The claims recite the same core invention — a system that generates a lead list from previously unclosed/non-binding insurance quotations, generates re-quotations, calculates a likelihood of binding using a state regression model, determines scores in relation to other leads, and transmits a ranked lead list to remote devices. The differences are:
“Adjustment” vs. “increase”: The instant claim recites “an adjustment in offered insurance coverage,” which is a genus encompassing the '669 Patent’s “an increase in offered insurance coverage.” Broadening a species to a genus is an obvious modification. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
One device vs. two devices: The instant claim requires transmission to a single remote device with a single ranking range, whereas the '669 Patent requires transmission to two separate devices with two distinct ranking ranges. Transmitting to one device is an obvious subset of transmitting to two devices — it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to send a ranked list to one device rather than dividing it between two.
Generic repository vs. specific repository: The instant claim recites a generic “data repository,” whereas the '669 Patent specifically defines the repository as storing “information corresponding to a plurality of historical previously unclosed insurance quotations that did not result in a sale.” Removing specificity from a limitation is an obvious broadening.
These differences represent obvious broadenings of the '669 Patent claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the instant claims and the '669 Patent claims as covering the same inventive concept with only obvious variations in scope.
Dependent Claim Mapping
Instant Application
'669 Patent
Notes
Claim 1
Claim 1
Instant is broader (see above)
Claim 2 (model generator)
Claim 7 (construct state regression model using logistic regression function)
Model generation using data from repository; obvious variant
Claim 3 (historical quotations that did not bind)
Claim 1 (“historical previously unclosed insurance quotations that did not result in a sale”)
Same concept, different terminology
Claim 4 (weightings or inputs)
Claims 7–8 (intercept, weighting parameters, enumerated inputs)
Obvious variant — determining weightings/inputs is inherent in model construction
Claim 5 (adjusts based on a test)
Claims 7, 10–11 (model construction with parameters that are adjusted based on conditions)
Obvious to test and adjust model parameters
Claim 6 (Pearson’s chi-squared / likelihood ratio test)
Claims 7–11 (logistic regression construction)
Conventional statistical tests used in logistic regression model validation; obvious to include
Claim 7 (multi-state model)
Claim 1 (state regression model)
Obvious variant per specification ¶¶ [31]–[32], [57] disclosing interchangeability
Claim 8
Claim 21
Method counterpart — same analysis as Claim 1 vs. Patent Claim 1
Claim 9
Claim 22
Same as Claim 2
Claim 10
Claim 21
Same as Claim 3
Claim 11
Claims 25–26
Same as Claim 4
Claim 12
Claims 25–26
Same as Claim 5
Claim 13
Claims 25–26
Same as Claim 6
Claim 14
Claim 21
Same as Claim 7
Claim 15
Claim 27
CRM counterpart — same analysis as Claim 1 vs. Patent Claim 1
Claim 16
Claim 30
Same as Claim 2
Claim 17
Claim 27
Same as Claim 3
Claim 18
Claim 30
Same as Claim 4
Claim 19
Claim 30
Same as Claim 5
Claim 20
Claim 30
Same as Claim 6
Conclusion — Rejection I
Claims 1–20 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from Claims 1–11 and 21–30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,138,669. The instant claims are obvious broadenings of the '669 Patent claims covering the same inventive concept.
Rejection II: Claims 1–20 over U.S. Patent No. 10,482,536
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,482,536 (hereinafter “'536 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader variants of the '536 Patent claims directed to the same inventive concept — prioritizing insurance re-quotation leads using a regression model to calculate likelihood of conversion and rank leads.
Independent Claim Comparison
The following table illustrates the correspondence between instant Claim 1 and '536 Patent Claim 1:
Limitation
Instant Application Claim 1
'536 Patent Claim 1
System structure
“one or more computer devices comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory device”
“one or more computer devices comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory device”
Data repository
“a data repository communicatively coupled to the one or more computer devices”
“an insurance quotation data repository computing device storing information corresponding to a plurality of historical unclosed insurance quotations that previously did not result in a sale”
Data retrieval
[Not explicitly recited as separate step]
“retrieve, from the insurance quotation data repository computing device, information…includes at least one of a quotation identifier, a name, an address, and a phone number”
Lead list generation
“automatically generate a lead list using a plurality of previously non-binding quotations…the lead list including a plurality of leads”
“generate a list of insurance leads based on information stored on the insurance quotation data repository computing device including a type of insurance coverage to be offered and a geographic location of one or more individuals”
Store in lead list repository
[Not recited]
“store, in a lead list data repository, the list of insurance leads”
Receive from lead list repository
[Not recited]
“receive the list of insurance leads from the lead list data repository communicatively coupled to the one or more computing devices”
Re-quotation
“generate a re-quotation for insurance coverage…wherein the difference comprises at least one of an adjustment in offered insurance coverage and a reduction in cost”
“generate a re-quotation for insurance coverage…the re-quotation including a difference from a previously unclosed insurance quotation, wherein the difference comprises at least one of an insurance coverage difference and a cost difference”
Model generation
[Not recited in independent claim]
“generate, based on analyzing the information associated with the plurality of historical…unclosed insurance quotations and information associated with the re-quotation, a multi-state regression model, wherein the multi-state regression model is common to a plurality of states”
Model type
“a state regression model…corresponds to a state of residence of each of the plurality of leads”
“a multi-state regression model…common to a plurality of states”
Calculate likelihood
“calculate a likelihood of binding for each of the plurality of leads included in the lead list by executing the state regression model”
“calculate a likelihood of closing for each of the leads using the multi-state regression model”
Score/Ranking
“determine a score for each of the plurality of leads…based on the likelihood of binding, wherein the score of each lead is determined in relation to other leads on the lead list”
“determine a ranking for each of the leads based on the likelihood of closing…wherein the ranking for each of the leads is assigned in relation to other leads on the list of insurance leads”
Transmit
“automatically transmit, via a network, a ranked lead list to a remote device…wherein the ranked lead list includes the plurality of leads associated with a ranking range”
“communicate, via a network, a first portion of the list of insurance leads to a first remote network device and a second portion of the list of insurance leads to a second device, wherein the first portion…includes lead data records associated with a first ranking range and the second portion…includes lead data records associated with a second ranking range”
Analysis — Claim 1
Instant Claim 1 is not patentably distinct from '536 Patent Claim 1. The claims recite the same core invention — a system that generates a lead list from previously unclosed/non-binding insurance quotations, generates re-quotations with differences in coverage/cost, evaluates each lead using a regression model, determines a score/ranking in relation to other leads, and transmits ranked lead data to remote devices. The differences are:
Omission of data handling steps (retrieve, store, receive): The '536 Patent explicitly recites retrieving information from the data repository, storing the lead list in a separate lead list data repository, and receiving the lead list back from that repository. The instant claim omits these intermediate steps, making it broader. The omission of these conventional data handling steps is an obvious broadening — one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that data must be retrieved and stored in order for the system to function, and the explicit recitation of these routine operations does not create a patentable distinction.
State regression model vs. multi-state regression model: The instant claim uses “a state regression model” corresponding to a state of residence, whereas the '536 Patent uses “a multi-state regression model” common to a plurality of states. These are obvious variants of each other. The shared specification discloses both state-specific and multi-state models as interchangeable alternatives for the same purpose (see specification ¶¶ [31]–[32], [57]). Furthermore, instant dependent Claim 7 recites “wherein the state regression model includes a multi-state model,” explicitly bridging this gap.
Omission of explicit model generation: The '536 Patent explicitly recites generating the multi-state regression model based on analyzing historical quotation information and re-quotation information. The instant independent claim does not recite explicit model generation — making it broader. One cannot execute a model without it having been generated; the instant claim merely omits this implicit prerequisite step.
One device vs. two devices: Same as Rejection I above — transmitting to one device with one ranking range is an obvious subset of transmitting to two devices with two ranking ranges.
Terminology:
“Likelihood of binding” (instant) vs. “likelihood of closing” ('536 Patent) — synonymous in the insurance context (both refer to the probability of converting a quotation into a sale).
“Score” (instant) vs. “ranking” ('536 Patent) — functionally equivalent; both are determined in relation to other leads.
“Adjustment in offered insurance coverage / reduction in cost” (instant) vs. “insurance coverage difference / cost difference” ('536 Patent) — both describe the same concept with substantially similar breadth.
These differences represent obvious broadenings and terminology substitutions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the instant claims and the '536 Patent claims as covering the same inventive concept.
Dependent Claim Mapping
Instant Application
'536 Patent
Notes
Claim 1
Claim 1
Instant is broader (see above)
Claim 2 (model generator using data from repository)
Claim 1 (“generate…a multi-state regression model” based on analyzing historical data) and Claim 6 (logistic regression function with intercept and weighting parameters)
Model generation from data — obvious variant
Claim 3 (historical quotations that did not bind)
Claim 1 (“historical unclosed insurance quotations that previously did not result in a sale”)
Same concept
Claim 4 (determines weightings or inputs)
Claims 6–7 (intercept parameter, weighting parameters, enumerated inputs including premium, discount, credit, age, etc.)
Obvious variant — determining weightings/inputs is inherent in model construction
Claim 5 (adjusts weightings/inputs based on a test)
Claims 6–7 (logistic regression function with determined parameters)
Obvious to adjust model parameters based on testing during model development
Claim 6 (Pearson’s chi-squared / likelihood ratio test)
Claim 6 (logistic regression function)
Conventional statistical tests used in logistic regression validation; obvious to include
Claim 7 (multi-state model)
Claim 1 (“multi-state regression model…common to a plurality of states”)
Directly recited in '536 Patent Claim 1
Claim 8
Claim 11
Method counterpart — same analysis as Claim 1
Claim 9
Claims 11, 15
Same as Claim 2
Claim 10
Claim 11
Same as Claim 3
Claim 11
Claims 15–16
Same as Claim 4
Claim 12
Claims 15–16
Same as Claim 5
Claim 13
Claims 15–16
Same as Claim 6
Claim 14
Claim 11
Same as Claim 7
Claim 15
Claim 20
CRM counterpart — same analysis as Claim 1
Claim 16
Claim 20
Same as Claim 2
Claim 17
Claim 20
Same as Claim 3
Claim 18
Claim 20
Same as Claim 4
Claim 19
Claim 20
Same as Claim 5
Claim 20
Claim 20
Same as Claim 6
Conclusion — Rejection II
Claims 1–20 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from Claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,482,536. The instant claims are obvious broadenings of the '536 Patent claims, omitting data handling specificity, substituting a state model for a multi-state model (an obvious variant per the shared specification), and requiring transmission to one device rather than two. These variations do not create patentable distinctions.
Cure
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321© or 1.321(d) disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on the instant application that would extend beyond the expiration date of both U.S. Patent No. 11,138,669 and U.S. Patent No. 10,482,536 is required to overcome these rejections.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea falling within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions, sales activities, and business relations). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising one or more computer devices with a processor and non-transitory memory device. The claim falls within the statutory category of a machine. The analysis therefore proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites, in part, a system to:
automatically generate a lead list using a plurality of previously non-binding quotations received from a data repository, the lead list including a plurality of leads;
generate a re-quotation for insurance coverage for each of the plurality of leads included in the lead list, wherein the re-quotation includes a difference from a previously non-binding quotation for each of the plurality of leads, and wherein the difference comprises at least one of an adjustment in offered insurance coverage and a reduction in cost;
input the previously non-binding quotation and the re-quotation for each of the plurality of leads included in the lead list into a state regression model;
calculate a likelihood of binding for each of the plurality of leads included in the lead list by executing the state regression model, wherein the state regression model corresponds to a state of residence of each of the plurality of leads in the lead list;
determine a score for each of the plurality of leads using the state regression model based on the likelihood of binding, wherein the score of each lead is determined in relation to other leads on the lead list; and
automatically transmit, via a network, a ranked lead list to a remote device to cause the remote device to output the ranked lead list, wherein the ranked lead list includes the plurality of leads associated with a ranking range.
The limitations of generating a lead list from previously non-binding quotations, generating a re-quotation for insurance coverage, identifying a difference between the quotation and the re-quotation (i.e., an adjustment in coverage or a reduction in cost), inputting quotation data into a model, calculating a likelihood of binding, determining a score for each lead based on the likelihood of binding, and transmitting a ranked lead list for use in soliciting insurance sales, are directed to concepts of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Specifically, these limitations describe commercial interactions and sales activities — i.e., the business practice of prioritizing and managing insurance sales leads for re-solicitation. The generation of lead lists, the preparation of re-quotations with adjusted pricing or coverage, the evaluation of leads for likelihood of conversion, the scoring and ranking of leads, and the prioritized distribution of ranked leads to agents are fundamental economic and commercial practices in the insurance industry. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II) (identifying “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)” as abstract).
The use of a “state regression model” to calculate the likelihood of binding and determine scores does not remove the claim from the abstract idea grouping. Rather, the regression model serves as a tool within the overall commercial process of evaluating and prioritizing sales leads — an activity that insurance professionals have long performed using actuarial judgment, statistical tables, and manual scoring methods. The claimed process, at its core, describes what an insurance sales manager or actuary would do: review old unsuccessful quotations, prepare improved offers, evaluate the likelihood that each prospect will accept the new offer, rank the prospects accordingly, and distribute the prioritized list to agents for follow-up contact. The regression model is employed in service of this commercial/business objective.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping identified in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the following additional elements beyond the abstract idea:
“one or more computer devices comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory device storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the one or more computer devices to…”
“a data repository communicatively coupled to the one or more computer devices”
“automatically transmit, via a network, a ranked lead list to a remote device to cause the remote device to output the ranked lead list”
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions. The processor, memory, data repository, network, and remote device are generic computing components that serve merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. See specification ¶¶ [35]–[38], [43], [45]–[48] (describing general purpose computing systems, processors, memory, networks, and remote terminals without any specialized hardware or architecture). The specification does not describe any particular machine architecture, specialized processor, or non-conventional arrangement of computing components.
The recitation of “automatically” generating the lead list and “automatically” transmitting the ranked list does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application; these terms merely describe the use of a computer to automate what would otherwise be a manual business process. This amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Similarly, transmitting data “via a network” to “a remote device” to “cause the remote device to output” the ranked lead list constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity — specifically, mere data output/display of results. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claims do not recite: (1) an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (3) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05©); or (4) any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Neither the claims nor the specification identifies an improvement in the operation of the computer system itself. The specification does not recite performance metrics (e.g., reduced processing time, reduced memory utilization, reduced network latency, or improved computational accuracy). Rather, the alleged improvement is to a business process — i.e., improving the efficiency of insurance lead prioritization and the resulting bind rate for re-quotations. An improvement to a business process, implemented on generic hardware, does not constitute an improvement to computer functionality or technology. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
The use of a “state regression model” does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. The regression model is a well-known statistical technique, and its application to insurance quotation data is merely a field-of-use limitation that restricts the business method to a particular domain (insurance lead scoring). A general linking of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not demonstrate patent eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements — computer devices, processor, non-transitory memory, data repository, network, and remote device — are generic computing components that, individually and in ordered combination, perform their ordinary and conventional functions (storing data, processing instructions, retrieving data from a repository, transmitting data over a network, and outputting/displaying results). These functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities performed by generic computers. See:
Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory);
OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (recognizing receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory as WURC).
The specification confirms that the computing components are generic. See specification ¶¶ [35]–[38] (describing standard processors, RAM, ROM, operating systems, network interfaces, modems, and general-purpose computing hardware). There is no indication that the combination of elements produces any unconventional or non-generic arrangement of computing components.
The execution of a regression model on a generic processor is a routine application of a known statistical technique using standard computing hardware. The claims do not recite any novel or unconventional implementation of the regression model, any specialized hardware for executing the model, or any technical improvement to how the model is computed.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2–7
Claims 2–7 are dependent from Claim 1, and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 further recites that “the state regression model is generated via a model generator using information received from the data repository.” This limitation further describes the business process of developing a predictive model for lead prioritization and does not add a technological improvement. A “model generator” is described generically in the specification (¶¶ [54], [66]) as software executed on a computing device — i.e., a generic computer component performing a conventional function.
Claim 3 further recites that “the information includes historical quotations that did not bind.” This limitation merely specifies the type of data used as input to the model — a data characterization that further narrows the field of use and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering/selection). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 4 further recites that “the model generator determines at least one of weightings or inputs for the state regression model.” This limitation further defines the business process of developing a model for evaluating sales leads — i.e., determining which factors and coefficients to use when scoring prospects is part of the overall commercial activity of lead prioritization.
Claim 5 further recites that “the model generator adjusts at least one of the weightings or the inputs for the state regression model based on a test.” This limitation further defines the business process of refining a predictive model for sales lead evaluation — adjusting model parameters based on testing is a conventional aspect of model development within commercial analytics.
Claim 6 further recites that “the test includes at least one of a Pearson’s chi-squared test or a likelihood ratio test.” This limitation identifies well-known, conventional statistical tests used in model validation. The use of established statistical tests to validate a model for lead prioritization remains part of the overall commercial activity and does not add a technological improvement or inventive concept.
Claim 7 further recites that “the state regression model includes a multi-state model.” This limitation merely specifies that the model covers multiple states — a field-of-use limitation that defines the geographic scope of the business activity without adding a technological improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 2–7 do not identify an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality (MPEP § 2106.05(a)), a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05©). Given the above reasons, generic computing components associated with generating a lead list, generating a re-quotation, identifying a difference, inputting data into a regression model, calculating a likelihood of binding, determining scores, and transmitting/outputting a ranked lead list do not provide an inventive concept. Claims 2–7 are not patent eligible.
Independent Claims 8 and 15
Independent process Claim 8 and independent product Claim 15 are directed to an abstract idea as the Federal Circuit has held that an extended claim-by-claim analysis is not necessary where multiple claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.” See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In this case, Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to system Claim 1.
Claim 8 is directed to a method comprising the same operational steps recited in Claim 1 (generating a lead list, generating a re-quotation, inputting into a state regression model, calculating a likelihood of binding, determining a score, and transmitting a ranked lead list). The method claim falls within the statutory category of a process (Step 1) but recites the same abstract idea identified above. The method does not recite any additional elements beyond those analyzed in Claim 1, and for the same reasons set forth above, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2) or amount to significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the same operational steps recited in Claim 1. Claim 15 falls within the statutory category of a manufacture (Step 1) but recites the same abstract idea identified above. The non-transitory computer-readable medium and processor are generic computing components recited at a high level of generality. For the same reasons set forth above, Claim 15 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2) or amount to significantly more (Step 2B).
Dependent Claims 9–14 and 16–20
Claims 9–14, dependent from Claim 8, and Claims 16–20, dependent from Claim 15, recite substantially similar limitations as dependent Claims 2–7 (discussed above) and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 9 and 16 correspond to Claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 17 correspond to Claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 18 correspond to Claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 12 and 19 correspond to Claim 5 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 13 and 20 correspond to Claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 corresponds to Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9–14 and 16–20 do not identify an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality (MPEP § 2106.05(a)), a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05©). Given the above reasons, the claims do not provide an inventive concept and are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Therefore, Claims 1–20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) without significantly more. The claims recite the business practice of prioritizing insurance re-quotation leads using a regression model to calculate likelihood of binding and rank prospects, implemented on generic computer hardware, without any claimed technological improvement to computer functionality or any unconventional arrangement of computing components. The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Withdrawal of Prior Art Rejections / Statement on the Prior Art
The examiner notes that the prior art of record (including Virdhagriswaran, McConnell, Elad, Fields, Flynn, Hele, and Burge) fails to teach or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the specific operational workflow of generating a re-quotation for insurance coverage that includes a difference from a previously non-binding quotation, and inputting both the previously non-binding quotation and the re-quotation into a state regression model to calculate a likelihood of binding, as recited in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
However, the claims are not in condition for allowance. Outstanding rejections remain under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (subject matter eligibility) and the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), as set forth in detail below.
Conclusion
Art cited but not relied upon pertinent to application disclosure includes Akella, U.S. 9,092,802 generally identifying statistical business process models and systems; Stahl et al., U.S. 2014/0222469 generally identifying automated insurance re-quoting; and Syed, U.S. 2013/0110560 generally identifying unclosed insurance quotes, net conversion of policies, and number of bound policies based upon quotes.
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 MICHAEL W ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-4pm.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Mike Anderson
Supervisor Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights