DETAILED ACTION
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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on March 03, 2026 in which claims 1, 10, 16 and 19 are amended. Claims 2-3, 12 and 18 were previously cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 4-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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, 4-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 10 and 16.
The claims 1 and 4-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-11 and 13-15 are directed to a system and claims 17, 19 and 20 are directed to a computer device which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites : training, via one or more processors, a first artificial intelligence model based upon: independent variables including: (i) reliability ratings of historical distributed ledgers, (ii) uniqueness ratings of historical digital assets associated with NFTs on the historical distributed ledgers, (iii) historical prices paid for lost NFTs of the historical NFTs, (iv) lengths of time that the historical NFTs have existed, and/or (vi) historical minters of the historical NFTs; and dependent variables including costs of historical NFTs at times of losses, wherein training the first artificial intelligence model comprises creating multiple regression models, and selecting a regression model with a least error from amongst the multiple regression models; receiving, via the one or more processors and from a computing device of a customer, a request to purchase insurance for the NFT; determining, via the one or more processors, a predicted cost at time of loss, by inputting, into the trained first artificial intelligence model: (i) a reliability rating of a distributed ledger, (ii) a uniqueness rating of the digital asset, (iii) a historical price paid for the NFT, (iv) a length of time the NFT has existed, and/or (v) a minter of the NFT; determining, via the one or more processors, an insurance premium for the insurance of the NFT by inputting the predicted cost at time of loss into a second artificial intelligence model; and sending, via the one or more processors, an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium to the computing device of the customer. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions. Obtaining a quote for insurance premium for insurance of a Non-fungible token (NFT) is a commercial interaction. It is also a pre-sale activity for insurance, a manner of risk mitigation and a fundamental economic practice. The claim also recites processors, a first artificial intelligence model, distributed ledger, the trained first artificial intelligence model, a second artificial intelligence model and a computing device, which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, processors, a first artificial intelligence model, distributed ledger, the trained first artificial intelligence model, a second artificial intelligence model and a computing device, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of processors, a first artificial intelligence model, distributed ledger, the trained first artificial intelligence model, a second artificial intelligence model and a computing device, result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of processors, a first artificial intelligence model, distributed ledger, the trained first artificial intelligence model, a second artificial intelligence model and a computing device, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 9A). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of processors, a first artificial intelligence model, distributed ledger, the trained first artificial intelligence model, a second artificial intelligence model and a computing device, are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of processors, a first artificial intelligence model, distributed ledger, the trained first artificial intelligence model, a second artificial intelligence model and a computing device, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claims 10 and 16 and hence the claims 10 and 16 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 16 also recites memories that amounts to generic computer implementation.
Dependent claims 4-9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 19-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 9, 15 and 20 recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claim 1 and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claims 9, 15 and 20 recite the additional element of a database. A database, recited in the claim, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
3. Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 4-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are ineligible.
Prior Art
4. The prior art rejection was withdrawn in the Non-Final Rejection dated November 14, 2025 based on the claim amendments. An updated search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed March 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
6. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (pages 7-8), Applicant argues that, “claim 1 is subject matter eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Claims simply use the trained artificial intelligence model as a tool to determine a predicted cost at time of loss. Selecting a regression model with a least error may help determine the insurance premium more accurately, however, it does not improve the functionality of computers or any other technology. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. An improvement in abstract idea is still abstract (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The specification describes the additional elements of processors, an artificial intelligence model, distributed ledger, the trained artificial intelligence model and a computing device to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 9A). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of processors, a first artificial intelligence model, distributed ledger, the trained first artificial intelligence model, a second artificial intelligence model and a computing device, are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. The additional 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
Examiner Request
7. The Applicant is request 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 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
April 10, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights