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
This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 05 February 2026. Claims 1, 5, 8 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
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, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for processing event claims for insurance policy holders and managing losses and detecting fraud by insurers.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of connect with a plurality of third-party data sources to obtain information pertaining to at least one of loss or damage resulting from the catastrophic event; based on the information obtained from the plurality of third- party data sources, determine a set of users that have property impacted by the catastrophic event; for each respective user of the set of users; transmit a communication to the respective user, wherein the communication comprises a link that, when selected by the respective user, causes the respective user to initiate a claim process for the respective user, generating content data that causes a display to present for the respective user in conjunction with the user initiating an interactive session during which a content flow is provided for the respective user, the content flow being dynamically customized based on a set of unique property attributes of the respective user's property; during the interactive session with the respective user, initiate a live engagement monitor comprising, based on the set of response factors for the respective user, dynamically adapt the customized content flow for the respective user to provoke further engagement by the respective user with the customized content flow, wherein dynamically adapting the customized content flow includes, at least, generating and presenting a 3D representation of the user's property, the representation incorporating an interactive user interface for receiving one or more user indications as to at least one location and severity of damage of the effect of the catastrophic event to specific locations of the user's property; and based at least in part on the information gathering from the dynamically adapted and customized content flows (i) receive policy information of the respective user with respect to the user's property, and (ii) initiate the claim process for the user in view of the information gathering from the dynamically adapted and customized content flows and the received policy information with respect to the damage of the effect of the catastrophic event to the user's property; and based at least in part on the information gathering from the dynamically adapted and customized content flows generated for each respective user of the set of users, generate a data set that includes a reserve estimate for total payout for the policy provider and transmit the data set to the policy provider.
The claimed system simply describes series of steps for processing event claims for insurance policy holders and managing losses and detecting fraud by insurers. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performances and concepts relating to fundamental economic principles or practices typically performed by parties involved in an insurable event (i.e., policyholders, participants/witnesses, and insurers) comprising commercial/legal interactions and risk mitigation among the parties involved in the insurable event to timely process event claims for policyholders and manage losses/fraud by insurers. If a claim limitation covers commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of A computing system implementing an integrated claims intelligence platform, a communication interface enabling communications, over one or more networks, with computing devices of users of the integrated claims intelligence platform, computing systems of third-party data sources, and computing systems of policy providers; one or more processors, a memory, a computing device, a service application to execute on the computing device, a user interface and a machine learning computer model to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification ¶¶ 0182-0184). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Merely adding generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application). Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
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 above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, the dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 14 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 14, recite additional limitations such as, determine the set of unique property attributes of the respective user based on policy data of the respective user, at least one of a satellite data source indicating the a geographic area affected by the catastrophic event, and at least partially obtain the information pertaining to the at least one of loss or damage resulting from the catastrophic event from the satellite data source and obtain claim information from each user in the set of users during the claim process; and update the reserve estimate for the policy provider based on the claim information received from each user in the set of users. These limitations further define the abstract idea and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1.
As mentioned above with respect to the independent claims, the claimed limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the 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.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a device, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic device to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments from the previous office actions.
The claims apply the abstract idea on the computer system at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues in substance that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would amount to significantly more.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem/internet-centric problem. Limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem.
The technology implemented in the instant application is useful to solve a business problem, but the additional elements are not a technological solution to a technological problem, or a solution to the problem introduced by the technology itself. Rather, the additional elements simply limit the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment.
The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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 instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed and displayed does not make it less abstract. The claimed use of computer elements recited at a high level of generality is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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 claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible.
Applicant’s citation of BASCOM is non-persuasive because the claims at issue in BASCOM are readily distinguishable over the instant claims. In BASCOM v. AT&T: The claimed invention is able to provide individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communication networks. …recite a system for filtering Internet content. The claimed filtering system is located on a remote ISP server that associates each network account with (1) one or more filtering schemes and (2) at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, thereby allowing individual network accounts to customize the filtering of Internet traffic associated with the account. For example, one filtering scheme could be “a word-screening type filtering scheme” and one set of filtering elements (from a plurality of sets) could be a “master list [] of disallowed words or phrases together with [an] individual [list of] words, phrases or rules.” Id. at 4:30-35.
In contrast, the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem and are thus incomparable to the claims at issue in BASCOM. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem.
Dependent claims do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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 Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights