DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 8/1/2025. Amendments to claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 have been entered. Claims 19 and 20 have been cancelled. New claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-18, 21 and 22 are pending and have been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 1-18, 21 and 22 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 because claims 1 and 11 are directed to a device and claims 6 and 16 are directed to a process; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 recite a series of steps of gathering information for requesting, receiving, displaying and accepting an insurance quote for a product, which is a fundamental economic practice, i.e. managing insurance, and commercial or legal interaction, i.e. agreements in the form of contracts, and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 6, bolded below, recite the abstract idea as follows.
6. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method of retrieving product information for a user, the method being implemented via a mobile device associated with the user, the mobile device including one or more processors, wireless transceivers, and cameras, the method comprising:
detecting, via a camera or a wireless transceiver of the mobile device, a proximity information source associated with a product the proximity information source encoding quote request information including (i) a quote provider identifier associated with a remote server, (ii) a product identifier associated with the product, and (iii) a product offeror identifier associated with a product offeror of the product;
in response to detecting the proximity information source, generating a product information request including the product identifier and the product offeror identifier for identifying the product and a location address for locating a remote computing device storing product information about the product, the location address determined based upon the product identifier and the product offeror identifier;
transmitting the product information request to the remote computing device using the location address;
receiving the product information from the remote computing device in response to transmitting the product information request;
transmitting, via the mobile device and via a first wireless communication over one or more radio frequency links, the received product information to the remote server, the remote server identified based upon the quote provider identifier;
receiving, via the mobile device and via a second wireless communication over the one or more radio frequency links, from the remote server an electronic quote document for insurance covering the product, the electronic quote document being pre-populated based upon the product information and user information associated with the user determined by the remote server based upon an identified internet protocol (IP) address of the mobile device; and
presenting or displaying on the mobile device screen the electronic quote document for the user's review, modification, or approval.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of a “mobile device including one or more processors, wireless transceivers, and cameras” and a display screen, a remote “computing device” storing information, a first and second wireless communication over one or more frequency links, a “proximity information source”, e.g. a QR code attached to a product and an “electronic” quote document, i.e. a digital document displaying insurance quote information, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. The location “address” is defined as “a QR code and include information about the location (e.g., website or other address information) of the one or more processors.”, see [0006] or “such as for example its address, zip code (e.g., location),”, see [0054] which is a most basic computing location element or actual physical location address. The “identified internet protocol (IP) address of the mobile device” is merely a unique numerical address identifying the device on the network and is a most conventional computing element. Determining and issuing an insurance policy coverage document for acceptance, based on the product information of a particular product, is a business problem and an abstract concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are analyzed similarly and also recite the abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processor suitably programmed communicating over generic networks, to perform the recited steps. The “internet protocol (IP) address” is merely a unique numerical address identifying the generic mobile device on the generic network. The “encoding” is claimed at a very high level of generality such that it is leveraging a known QR code to store information in a conventional manner. As claimed in claims 1, 6, 11 and 16, there are no technical implementation details such that a human being could not identify user information based on the device’s IP address. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least FIG.2 and paragraphs [0045] and [0064-0071] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the receiving, transmitting and storing of information steps are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05 (g). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed 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 an abstract idea as are claims 1, 11 and 16.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed, a camera or wireless transceiver and servers storing information all communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the receiving, transmitting and storing of information steps are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05 (g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible and either are claims 1, 11 and 16.
For instance, in the process of claim 6, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, these the insignificant extra-solution activity steps rely on well-understood, routine and conventional computing functionality carried out by a generic processor with memory such as data gathering/transmission over a generic communication network and data storage, akin to receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,(utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., (sending messages over a network) and buySAFE, Inc. (computer receives and sends information over a network) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as well as selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of gathering information for requesting, receiving, displaying and accepting an insurance quote for a product, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17, 18, 21 and 22 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17 and 18 further refine the abstract idea by leveraging a mobile device camera to scan a QR code or NFC tag to determine product information. Determining information can be completed manually. There are no technical details such that this is anything more than using a computing device and camera and NFC technology as a tool to gather information for use in the abstract idea. This is also insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. gathering data, in a most well-understood, routine and conventional manner akin to electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14 and 15 further define the product as being a vehicle or house that has the QR code or NFC tag attached to it. Again, there are no technical details such that a QR code or NFC tag, which are well known technologies for providing any type of information, are just nominally recited to be scanned as known in the art for gathering information. The fact that it is a specific type of information does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. This is automating a manual process of requesting an insurance quote for a house or vehicle. Claims 21 and 22 further refine the abstract idea by transmitting an acceptance of the insurance quote and receiving access to an acknowledgment message including certain information. The “receive access” does not provide any technical detail as to what the “how” behind this limitation is achieved.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for gathering information for requesting, receiving, displaying and accepting an insurance quote for a product) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed with transceivers and a camera communicating over a generic network to generic servers) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for gathering information for requesting, receiving, displaying and accepting an insurance quote for a product) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks filed 8/1/2025, with respect to the claim objection of claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed in the Remarks of 8/1/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-18, 21 and 22, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “A. The Pending Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea” and further on page 12, “Claim 1 solves this technical problem by using an unconventional proximity information source, namely, a proximity information source that encodes at least three different identifiers: (i) an quote provider identifier, (ii) a product identifier, and (iii) a product offeror identifier. The quote provider identifier enables the system to route an electronic quote request to a remote server associated with specific quote provider, and the product identifier and product offeror identifier enable the system to identify a computing device that can provide information relating to a product sufficient for completing the electronic quote request. Thus, this unconventional configuration of the proximity information source enables the system to access a potentially large set of information without this information needing to be stored locally within the proximity information source.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner has clearly set forth the abstract idea in the analysis above. The additional elements are leveraged to automate an otherwise manual process to gain the advantage of improving the efficiency of requesting an insurance quote for a specific product. This is an age old fundamental economic practice, i.e. requesting an amount for purchasing an insurance policy, which is a contract, to mitigate risk of loss or damage. This is also made clear in Applicant’s specification in paragraph [0004], “The present embodiments disclosed herein may include mobile devices operated by users to obtain (i) insurance quotes; (ii) offers to enter into insurance policy contracts; and/or (iii) issued insurance policy contracts in connection with a transactions to purchase goods or services.”
Scanning a QR code containing three types of identifiers is not solving a technical problem. There are no technical details as to “how” the system is enabled to route certain information to certain destinations other than identifying information in a most high level manner. As such, this is interpreted to be transmitting data in a most conventional manner between generic computing devices. This is automating, at a very high level of generality, a manual process.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) discusses cases in which the Federal Circuit determined that the claims did not reflect an improvement to computer-functionality or other technology. For instance, if a claimed process can be performed without a computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit "cannot be characterized as an improvement in a computer" because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further discussion of these cases, and additional examples of what the courts have indicated does and does not show an improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues ‘“B. Applicant's Claims Are Directed to "Significantly More" Than the Abstract Idea”’ and on page 13, ‘“‘“In the instant application, the pending claims clearly recite more than well-understood, routine, or conventional functionality systems for computer systems, at least with respect to a mobile device configured to "detect, via a camera or a wireless transceiver of the mobile device, a proximity information source associated with a product, the proximity information source encoding quote request information including (i) a quote provider identifier associated with a remote server, (ii) a product identifier associated with the product, and (iii) a product offeror identifier associated with a product offeror of the product," "in response to detecting the proximity information source, generate a product information request including the product identifier and the product offeror identifier for identifying the product and a location address for locating a remote computing device storing product information about the product, the location address determined based upon the product identifier and the product offeror identifier," "transmit the product information request to the remote computing device using the location address," "receive the product information from the remote computing device in response to transmitting the product information request," "transmit, via a first wireless communication over one or more radio frequency links, the received product information to the remote server, the remote server identified based upon the quote provider identifier," "receive, via a second wireless communication over the one or more radio frequency links, from the remote server an electronic quote document for insurance covering the product, the electronic quote document being pre-populated by the remote server based upon the product information and user information associated with the user determined by the remote server based upon an identified internet protocol (IP) address of the mobile device," and "present or display on the mobile device screen the electronic quote document for the user's review, modification, or approval," as is recited in amended Claim 1.
The Office Action provides no indication that these recitations of the pending claims (alone or as an ordered combination) are well understood, routine, or conventional in computer systems. As the Federal Circuit confirmed in Berkheimer, even if the Office Action asserts that the pending claims are rendered obvious by virtue of disparate publications, this does not amount to evidence that the recitations are well understood, routine, or conventional under this second step.”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There are no technical implementation details as to “how” any of the steps improve technology or are accomplished in a manner other than generic processors suitably programmed identify gathered information to route and gather further information to complete the age old abstract idea of generating an insurance quote for a product. The steps of the claims, taken individually or as an ordered combination, have already been identified in the rejection as corresponding to an abstract idea. Applicant’s specification makes clear, see at least FIG.2 and paragraphs [0045] and [0064-0071], that all of the additional elements are generic computing elements. The “detecting” via a camera or wireless transceiver step is recited at a very high level of generality such this is leveraging known technology in a conventional manner to gather information which leads to gathering additional information to solve the abstract idea. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces but merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic computer components. The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
According to the USPTO guidelines of April 19, 2018 incorporating the Berkheimer memo (Berkheimer memo, hereinafter),
In a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements). This option should
be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The fact that a generic computing system, such as described above, can be suitably programmed to perform the claimed method without requiring any nonconventional computer, network, or other computing components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but instead merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the Berkheimer memo requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the Berkheimer memo). The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Hence these additional elements do not add anything significantly more than an abstract idea.
In summary, the computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, rejection of claims 1 and 3-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
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 CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693