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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 09/12/2025.
• Claims 1, 13, 17 and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claim 21 has been canceled.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement(s) filed on 07/07/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 12, that the claims improve technical functioning, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of recommending insurance coverage and changes to insurance policies (see at least [0002]-[0007] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., recommending insurance coverage, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Applicant further argues on pages 12-13, that the claims reduce signals and optimizes resources. The argument is not persuasive. In response to this argument, it is noted, “‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ [is] insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality.” Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364 (quoting Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“These benefits, however, are not improvements to database functionality. Instead, they are benefits that flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with a well-known database structure.”).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 14, that the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of claim 1, 17, and 19 include one or more processors and an artificial intelligence (Al) chatbot; an insurance contract computing server; displaying, on a display of an insurance agent computing device, a link enabling access; a display of a potential insurance customer computing device. The additional elements of claim 13 include an artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) chatbot or voicebot implemented by one or more processors of an insurance contract computing server; and an insurance agent computing device. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 13, 17, and 19 are directed to a method (claims 1 and 13), a system (claim 17), and an apparatus (claim 19). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 13, 17, and 19 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 13, 17, and 19 recite, in part, a system, a method, and an apparatus of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts. Claim 1 recites presenting an insurance contract created to a potential insurance customer, the method comprising, receiving an input statement; building a query vector, a key vector, and a value vector based upon the input statement; generating a normalized weight based upon a dot product of the query vector and the key vector; generating a final vector by multiplying the normalized weight by the value vector; determining from the received input statement:(i) a type of insurance policy, wherein the type of insurance policy comprises a homeowners insurance policy, a renters insurance policy, an auto insurance policy, a life insurance policy, a disability insurance policy, and/or an umbrella insurance policy; and (ii) that information is missing from the input statement; in response to the determination that information is missing from the input statement, displaying, a request for the missing information; receiving the missing information; building an insurance contract based upon (i) the type of insurance policy and (ii) the missing information; displaying the insurance contract; receiving a selection; in response to receiving the selection, displaying the insurance contract; and displaying the insurance contract to the potential insurance customer.
Claims 17 and 19 recite similar limitations to claim 1 above.
Claim 13 recites presenting an insurance contract created to a potential insurance customer: receiving an input statement; applying a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to text of the input statement to generate a plurality of tokens, each token comprising a word or phrase; building a query vector, a key vector, and a value vector for each token of the plurality of tokens; determining, a similarity metric between a built query vector of a token of the plurality of tokens and each built key vector by taking respective dot products of the built query vector and each built key vector; generating, normalized weights by routing the respective dot products into a softmax function; generating, a final vector by multiplying the normalized weights by the value vector of the token of the plurality of tokens, wherein the final vector represents an importance of the token of the plurality of tokens; determining, from the received input statement: (i) a type of insurance policy based upon the final vector, wherein the type of insurance policy comprises a homeowners insurance policy, a renters insurance policy, an auto insurance policy, a life insurance policy, a disability insurance policy, and/or an umbrella insurance policy; and (ii) that information is missing from the input statement; in response to the determination that information is missing from the input statement, audibly presenting, a request for the missing information; receiving the missing information; building an insurance contract based upon (i) the type of insurance policy and (ii) the missing information; displaying the insurance contract; receiving a selection; in response to receiving the selection, displaying the insurance contract; displaying the insurance contract to the potential insurance customer.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices of insurance and mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for using input information to create and present an insurance contract to a potential customer, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of insurance. The mere nominal recitation of one or more processors and an AI/ML chatbot do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of claim 1, 17, and 19 include one or more processors and an artificial intelligence (Al) chatbot; an insurance contract computing server; displaying, on a display of an insurance agent computing device, a link enabling access; a display of a potential insurance customer computing device. The additional elements of claim 13 include an artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) chatbot or voicebot implemented by one or more processors of an insurance contract computing server; and an insurance agent computing device. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions of providing an AI/ML chatbot to a potential customer to provide an insurance contract) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do 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 in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2, 4-11, and 14-18 simply help to define the abstract idea. Furthermore, dependent claims 3, 6, 8, 11-12, and 20 simply further describes the technological environment. Dependent claims 3 and 11 recite the additional elements of databases, which merely further describes the applied computer. Dependent claims 6 and 8 recite the additional element of a location derived from a GPS signal or cell phone signal, which further describes data used by the merely applied computer. Dependent claim 12 recites the additional elements of deep learning algorithm, GPT, LSTM, and transformer neural network, which merely further describes computer functions of the merely applied computer. Dependent claim 20 recites the additional element of a display device, which merely further describes a display function of the merely applied computer. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 112164391 A (“Li”) discloses determining the similarity between a semantic feature and each candidate semantic recognition result through a semantic recognition model.
US 20200042649 A1 (“Bakis”) discloses presenting a user interface for a conversational system is described. A user input is received in a dialog between a user and the conversational system, the user input in a natural language. A domain trained semantic matcher is used to determine a set of entities and a user intent from the user input. One or more queries is generated to selected ones of a plurality of knowledge sources, the knowledge sources created from domain specific knowledge. The results from the one or more queries are ranked based on domain specific knowledge. A system response is presented in the dialog based on at least a highest ranked result from the plurality of knowledge sources.
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 RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM 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, Bennett M 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 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694