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 12 August 2025. Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-19 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted in this application on 26 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The initialed copy of the 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-3, 6-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (machine), as claim 1 is directed to a system comprising a series of components; claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a series of operations; and claim 17 is directed to a method comprising a series of steps. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, with respect to claims -3, 6-11 and 14-19, the independent claims (claims 1, 9, and 17) are directed, in part, to facilitating detection of fraud in connection with the processing of insurance claims, wherein the operations include providing an individualized content flow for the first user, the individualized content flow comprising a first series of interactive subpages to the first user to provide first contextual information about the claim event; based at least in part on the first contextual information provided by the first user, determining a second user to provide additional contextual information about the claim event; providing an individualized content flow for the second user, the individualized content flow comprising a second series of interactive subpages for the second user to provide additional contextual information about the claim event; during each of a plurality of information gathering sessions with the second user, detect, in real-time, engagement data, the engagement data corresponding to (i) user inputs and interactions by the second user with individual subpages, and (ii) timing information in which the second user engages or does not engage with the individualized content flow; based on monitoring the engagement data in real-time, determining a set of responsiveness factors individual to the second user, the set of responsiveness factors corresponding to one or more methods of content presentation that provoke response or engagement by the second user with the individualized content flow; over the plurality of information gathering sessions, dynamically adapting the individualized content flow based on the engagement data and the set of responsiveness factors of the second user to induce user engagement by the second user, wherein dynamically adapting the individualized content flow for the second user comprises at least one of adapting an ordering, design, styling, or timing of the second series of subpages in the individualized content flow; making a determination as to whether the first contextual information provided by the first user is inconsistent with the additional contextual information provided by the second user; wherein the making the determination includes, generate each of a first simulation of the claim event using the first contextual information provided by the first user, and a second simulation of the claim event using the additional contextual information provided by the second user; and comparing the first simulation with the second simulation to determine whether any of the first contextual information is inconsistent with any of the additional contextual information; determining one or more actions for completing the process based at least in part on any inconsistency that is determined between the first contextual information provided by the first user and the additional contextual information provided by the second user; and generating the claim interface for the claim event, the claim interface providing each of a dynamic multi-view of each of the first simulation and the second simulation, and a graphic representation of the claim event with a visual marker to indicate any determined inconsistencies of at least the first contextual information.
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed by managing personal behavior and/or commercial or legal interactions, or abstract ideas, then it falls within “a method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of a claim interface, a computing device of a first user, a first interactive user interface, a computing device of a second user, a second interactive user interface, executing a live engagement monitor, one or more networks, a physics engine and a computing device of a policy provider to perform the claimed steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, gathering and examining information, and presenting an output with that received information such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more because the claims just recite receiving data, analyzing the data and presenting an output. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they neither impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, nor provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of using a processer to collect data amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere ways to output collected data using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considered individually or in combination, the claim elements and steps only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. The claims are not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18 and 19 are directed to additional steps. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the forms of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teaching and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
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 1-3, 6-11 and 14-19 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 been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-19 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 proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the claims to include the above-mentioned steps. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed above and in the previous office action rejections.
Moreover, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the claims do not recite subject matter that “falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity” of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
Applicant’s claimed process simply describes series of steps for loss prevention and mitigating services and facilitating detection of fraud in connection with the processing of insurance claims by obtaining information about a claim event from a first user, identifying a second user to provide information about the claim event based on the information provided by the first user, obtaining information about the claim event from the second user, and determining one or more actions for completing the process based on the information provided by both users. This is fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk), which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus an abstract idea. Therefore, it seems reasonable to Examiner to refer to group the abstract idea under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
The claims generally link the abstract idea and the gathering of information and determining an output based on analyzing the gathered information. 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.
In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The claimed method in CQG, “bid and asked prices are displayed dynamically along the static display, and the system pairs orders with the static display of prices and prevents order entry at a changed price.” CQG, 675 F. App’x at 1003. The court determined that “[t]he claims require a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art” of graphical user interface devices. Id. at 1004.
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 the court cases from the USPTO Guidelines. The computers, networks, and displays are functioning as designed and known to persons having ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Furthermore, 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 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.
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.
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”).
The focus of the claims in the present case is not on 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. 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.
Examiner submits that under the current 35 USC 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶: “We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete”. Indeed, in this in instant case, the limitations simply narrow or limit the abstract idea without providing anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18 and 19 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 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18 and 19 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 1-3, 6-11 and 14-19 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