DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Claims
This action is in reply to the response to Election/Restriction filed on October 2, 2025.
Claims 13–16 have been withdrawn from consideration because they have not been elected.
Claims 1–18 are currently pending, and claims 1–12, 17, and 18 have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1–12, 17, and 18 in the reply filed on October 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 2, “agreement,:” should read “agreement:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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 1–12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–12, 17, and 18 are directed to a process (“A method”). Thus, claims 1–12, 17, and 18 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–12, 17, and 18, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
receiving a settlement agreement;
determining payment details based on the settlement agreement; and
issuing an insurance policy based on the payment details.
The claims, therefore, recite issuing an insurance policy, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of insurance. The claims also recite determining payment details from an agreement, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because they involve observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“displaying . . . within system” and “family management system”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to send and receive information and determine insurance and payments. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2–12, 17, and 18 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2–5, 17, and 18, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite determining and rebalancing a payment schedule based on various factors, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These claims do recite a family management system, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to communicate information. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 6, the additional recited limitations of this claim are merely directed to an abstract idea. This dependent claim only recites issuing and receiving an irrevocability waiver, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of human activity because it recites a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk.
For claims 7–11, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite monitoring the insurance policy to track expiration, missed payments, and payments performed, and notifying users, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of insurance. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These claims do recite displaying information through a system, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to communicate information. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 12, the additional recited limitations of this claim are merely directed to an abstract idea. This dependent claim only recites calculating preliminary total payment amounts based on financial details, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of human activity because it recites a commercial interaction, and the abstract idea of mathematical concepts because it recites a mathematical calculation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Platt et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0278562 (“Platt”).
For claim 1, Platt teaches:
A method of managing family law obligations comprising (¶ 21: example method):
receiving a settlement agreement (¶ 21: information received; ¶ 17: court order or other legal agreement);
determining payment details based on the settlement agreement (¶ 21: information regarding payments); and
issuing an insurance policy based on the payment details (¶ 21: insurance policy issued based on payment information).
For claim 12, Platt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches:
The method of Claim 1 further comprising, before receiving a settlement agreement,: receiving financial details from a user (¶ 21: user information received);
calculating a set of preliminary total support amounts (¶ 21: amounts calculated for user); and
transmitting the set of preliminary support amounts to the user (¶ 21: amounts sent to user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
(1) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
(2) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
(3) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
(4) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2–5 and 8–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0278562 (“Platt”) in view of Kristan, U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0407024 (“Kristan”).
For claim 2, Platt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Platt does not teach: calculating a rebalancing beneficiaries support insurance (RBSI) payment schedule.
Kristan, however, teaches:
The method of Claim 1 wherein determining payment details based on the settlement agreement comprises: calculating a rebalancing beneficiaries support insurance (RBSI) payment schedule (¶ 20, 24, 39, 124: payment schedule may be readjusted).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment insurance in Platt by adding the payment monitoring from Kristan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of ensuring child support payments are completed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kristan (¶ 1–2: risk of failures to pay child support; ¶ 3: invention provides financing for payments, and administration of these payments).
For claim 3, Platt and Kristan teach all the limitations of claim 2 above, and Kristan further teaches:
The method of Claim 2 further comprising: updating the RBSI payment schedule on a regular basis or in response to actions being performed (¶ 39: payment schedule adjusted based on payments missed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment insurance in Platt by adding the payment monitoring from Kristan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of ensuring child support payments are completed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kristan (¶ 1–2: risk of failures to pay child support; ¶ 3: invention provides financing for payments, and administration of these payments).
For claim 4, Platt and Kristan teach all the limitations of claim 3 above, and Kristan further teaches:
The method of Claim 3 wherein the regular basis is weekly, monthly, bi- annually or annually (¶ 49: payments updated based on various timelines including monthly).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment insurance in Platt by adding the payment monitoring from Kristan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of ensuring child support payments are completed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kristan (¶ 1–2: risk of failures to pay child support; ¶ 3: invention provides financing for payments, and administration of these payments).
For claim 5, Platt and Kristan teach all the limitations of claim 3 above, and Kristan further teaches:
The method of Claim 3 wherein actions being performed comprise payments not made, removal of beneficiary from the settlement agreement or new expenses associated with the settlement agreement (¶ 39: payment schedule adjusted based on payments missed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment insurance in Platt by adding the payment monitoring from Kristan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of ensuring child support payments are completed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kristan (¶ 1–2: risk of failures to pay child support; ¶ 3: invention provides financing for payments, and administration of these payments).
For claim 8, Platt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Platt does not teach: monitoring status of the insurance policy; and determining a payment for the insurance policy has been missed.
Kristan, however, teaches:
The method of Claim 1 further comprising: monitoring status of the insurance policy (¶ 65, 67: monitoring progress of payments and collection); and
determining a payment for the insurance policy has been missed (¶ 123: payment missed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment insurance in Platt by adding the payment monitoring from Kristan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of ensuring child support payments are completed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kristan (¶ 1–2: risk of failures to pay child support; ¶ 3: invention provides financing for payments, and administration of these payments).
For claim 9, Platt and Kristan teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Kristan further teaches:
The method of Claim 8 further comprising: notifying policy owner of missed payment (¶ 123: non-custodial parent notified).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment insurance in Platt by adding the payment monitoring from Kristan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of ensuring child support payments are completed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kristan (¶ 1–2: risk of failures to pay child support; ¶ 3: invention provides financing for payments, and administration of these payments).
For claim 10, Platt and Kristan teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Kristan further teaches:
The method of Claim 8 further comprising: notifying support beneficiary of missed payment (¶ 114: custodial parent notified).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment insurance in Platt by adding the payment monitoring from Kristan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of ensuring child support payments are completed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kristan (¶ 1–2: risk of failures to pay child support; ¶ 3: invention provides financing for payments, and administration of these payments).
For claim 11, Platt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Platt does not teach: monitoring status of the insurance policy; receiving payment from a policy owner; and displaying payment within system for users to view.
Kristan, however, teaches:
The method of Claim 1 further comprising: monitoring status of the insurance policy (¶ 65, 67: monitoring progress of payments and collection);
receiving payment from a policy owner (¶ 22: receive payment from non-custodial parent); and
displaying payment within system for users to view (¶ 64: interface for displaying and monitoring payments).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment insurance in Platt by adding the payment monitoring from Kristan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of ensuring child support payments are completed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kristan (¶ 1–2: risk of failures to pay child support; ¶ 3: invention provides financing for payments, and administration of these payments).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features or combination of features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Carolan et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2004/0172279, discloses a system for facilitating interactions between family members .
Kiramittchian et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2003/0200124, discloses providing marriage insurance to parties of divorce or dissolution.
These references alone or in combination fail to disclose the following limitation of claim 6:
The method of Claim 1 further comprising: issuing an irrevocability waiver;
and the following limitations of claim 17:
determining an amount of time children spend with each parent; and
calculating the RBSI schedule on the amount of time children spend with each parent.
No reference could be found that discusses an irrevocability waiver for this type of insurance policy, and no reference could be found rebalancing insurance payments based on time spent with children. Dependent claims 7 and 18 have also not rejected due to their dependency on claims 6 and 17 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696