DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s amendments filed on October 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 10, and 19.
Applicant previously cancelled claims 8 and 17.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 112 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 under 35 USC 112(a) / 1st paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant amended the claims to address the issue. In view of the amended claims, Examiner withdraws this rejection.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely alleges the claims do not recite an abstract idea and provides no analysis as to why the claims are not directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Merely having a different opinion as to how to describe the thrust of the claims does not change what the claims actually recite. Examiner identified the limitations which define the abstract idea and how they are directed to a fundamental economic practice and commercial activity. The identified limitations describe commercial activity (create information, receiving information, comparing the information, etc.). The technology is merely uses to implement the claims (e.g., the premium calculation being done by a particular system). This does not change the commercial nature of the claims nor does it change the fundamental economic practice of calculating insurance premium for risk mitigation purposes. Since they are a fundamental economic practice and commercial activity the claims fall into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore constitute an abstract idea (and thus a judicial exception). Applicant is merely focusing on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (checking insurance premium relating information) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. It is not a technical solution to compare various pieces of information to look for errors. The claims are no more than “double checking” information. Applicant argued that a human could not realistically perform the volume of calculations. This is not persuasive; while the abstract idea may not be “realistic” in the sense that computer can do more calculations than a human; this does not mean that a human couldn’t do the work. The abstract idea merely identifies errors between data sources. The computer is just being used as a tool, perform the calculations, albeit on a larger scale. This does not amount to a practical application merely because the computer is doing something a human could… only better, faster, and more often. Applicant is not addressing a problem caused by technology or can only be cured with a technical solution. Applicant is addressing a business problem with a business solution and using a computer to implement it. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as validating a (financial) premium calculation.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 10-18), machine (claims 1-9), and manufacture/product (claims 19-20).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
obtain, from a third-party rating system configured for calculating premiums, a rating system premium calculation based on a plurality of profiles and on a stored set of rate factors;
wherein the rating system has data requirements mapped to the plurality of profiles.
for each of a plurality of rating system premium calculations, independently and periodically calculate a local system premium calculation based on the plurality of profiles and based on a current set of rate factors associated with calculating premiums;
wherein the rating system premium calculation is obtained in parallel with the calculation of the local premium calculation;
capture data transmissions;
upon calculating the local system premium calculation, automatically validate the rating system premium calculation,
the validation including compare the rating system premium calculation with the local system premium calculation to automatically determine a difference between the rating system premium calculation and the local system premium calculation;
and in response determining the difference between the rating system premium calculation and the local system premium calculation: compare data included in the captured data transmissions to expected data to identify an error in the data included in the captured data transmissions and where the error may have occurred as a source of the difference between the rating system premium calculation and the local system premium calculation,
output comparison results,
the comparison results including the rating system premium calculation, the local system premium calculation, an indication of the difference between the rating system premium calculation and the local system premium calculation, and an indication of the identified potential source of the difference;
and take corrective action to prevent the error from recurring.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice and commercial/legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a non-transient computer-readable storage medium, executable instructions, one or more hardware processors, a system, a third-party rating system, another system, an application programming interface, an insurance provider system, third-party systems, third-party policy creation system; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a non-transient computer-readable storage medium, executable instructions, one or more hardware processors, a system, a third-party rating system, another system, an application programming interface, an insurance provider system, third-party systems, third-party policy creation system; amount to no more than mere components to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0035], [0039-0044], [0055-0065], [0069-0073], [0080] about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 10. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 6, 15, and 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 10, and 19. In addition, the recite the additional elements of a user interface. The components are recited 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. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 6, 15, and 20 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, 18, and 20 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694