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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 August 2026 has been entered.
The following is a non-final office action in response to the amendment filed 19 August 2026
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 23, and cancellation of Claims 4, 10, 14 and 20 have been received and are acknowledged.
Examiner withdraws the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The applicant's claim for benefit of provisional application US 63/355261, filed 24 June 2022 has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-19 and 21-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1) Reiterating that the recited claims are “directed to specific technological improvements” and asserts that the “Final Office Action does not explain why the specific technological architecture identified by Applicant fails to improve the operation of the claimed computer-implemented environment.” (citing Office Action, pp. 2-5) (See also Applicant’s response 19, 22, (2) Referencing the Specification [3-7] Applicant notes that “… users of conventional online shopping platforms face challenges navigating multiple screens and interfaces to select, modify, and manage insurance products, while backend systems are burdened with coordinating user-specific information, product-selection information, and pricing information during active online sessions… claimed invention directly addresses these computer-centric problems through a specific web-based interaction architecture….” (Applicant’s response, 16-17) Applicant then references the claimed limitations (e.g. automatically identifying… dynamically determining… updating the collapsible side bar menu… retrieving historical data… identifying historical data… identifying insurance… updating the collapsible side bar ….determining a custom insurance service product… generating and displaying a price quote…. Interactive controls….” (Applicant’s response 17-18) Applicant further asserts “…The Final Office Action does not meaningfully address these technological features…” (Applicant’s response, 18) Applicant further argues that Examiner’s characterization of the claim limitations as part as part of the ‘alleged abstract idea’ mischaracterizes the claim limitations (i)- (vi) which are not “aspects of any alleged commercial interaction.” Again Applicant asserts that the recited claim features “define the specific technological architecture recited by the claims” (Applicant’s response, 19) Applicant then posits that the proper characterization of the recited claims would be “… a specific technological architecture for web-based interaction, including concurrent rendering of a collapsible sidebar menu with a webpage, retrieval and use of historical user data, session-aware identification of insurance products, responsive updating of displayed information based on user selections, and iterative generation and updating of quote information within a coordinated interface environment. The focus of the claims is therefore not the abstract idea of insurance management, but rather the manner in which user-interface components and underlying data structures operate together within an active web-based session….” (Applicant’s response, 19-20). (3) Applicant then argues that recited limitations include “ additional elements” that provide concrete technological functionality beyond any alleged abstract idea…” and “…integrate alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they recite a specific technological architecture …recited architecture addresses these shortcomings by maintaining a coordinated interface environment through which user interactions, historical information, session-specific information, insurance-product identification, and quote generation are processed together….these additional elements impose meaningful limitations on any alleged abstract idea and apply that idea through a specific technological implementation governing the operation of the claimed system. “ (Applicant’s response, 20-23). (4) Applicant further asserts that Final Office Action does not provide the required analysis under Alice Step 2B and MPEP 2106.05 nor does the “… does not explain why the claimed combination of dynamic sidebar determination, concurrent rendering of a collapsible sidebar menu with an insurance provider webpage, retrieval and use of historical data, identification of insurance products using user-specific and session-specific information, responsive updating of displayed information, determination of custom insurance service products, and generation and display of quote information would have been well-understood, routine, or conventional. Nor does the Final Office Action evaluate these operations as an ordered combination, notwithstanding the requirement under M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 that the additional elements be considered individually and collectively…the Final Office Action never identifies any evidence demonstrating that the claimed technological arrangement, considered as a whole, was well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of filing…the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea…the Examiner's own findings undermine the conclusion that the claims merely recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner expressly acknowledged that the prior art of record does not disclose numerous aspects of the claimed architecture... the Examiner's findings support Applicant's position that the claims recite a specific and non-conventional technological implementation that differs from the approaches disclosed in the prior art. Accordingly, the record before the Office does not support the conclusion that the claims merely invoke generic computer technology to perform an abstract idea” (Applicant’s response, 24-26).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated previously the rejection below and previously applies the Alice test with the steps clearly labelled as Steps 1, 2a and 2b including noting the specific limitations that recite the abstract idea. The rejection also cited the Specification and the MPEP. Further , as stated previously, per the Specification, the invention generally related to “…managing user insurance registration…specifically, the present disclosure relates to systems, methods, and devices for providing a means to manage and organize users' insurance options with a collapsible virtual sidebar applet…” (Specification, [2]) and “…Embodiments consistent with the present disclosure provide systems, methods, and devices for providing a means to manage and organize users' online purchases using a collapsible virtual sidebar….(Specification, [8])”
The recited instant claims as noted previously and below are categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (methods of organizing human activity) [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. The claims recite a use of “ a collapsible virtual sidebar” which is described as “… may include an actionable chevron icon that controls the collapsibility of the sidebar… may include one or more actionable icons to add, edit or remove insurance-related products…” (Specification [21]). As noted in the analysis below, the recited claims use technology as a tool to execute the abstract idea (i.e. “apply-it” MPEP 2106.05 (f)). As previously cited (i.e. evidence) the recited claims are executed by generic computing elements ( MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [21] collapsable sidebar may include one or more actionable icons to add, edit, or remove insurance-related products [25-26] memory, user device, processors, instructions; [34] user interfaces ) The recited claims do not recite an improvement technology (i.e. not ‘significantly more’) (see also MPEP 2106.05 (a) discussing i. generating restaurant menus…; iii. Mere automation of manual processes…”) . At most the instant recited claims are an improvement to the abstract idea. A novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. In the instant case, the recited limitations use computing technology recited at a high level of generality (i.e. memory devices, servers.. processors… network… graphical user interface… collapsible sidebar menu… webpage…platform…instructions, interface…connecting …device… network… user device.. ) to perform well-known routine and conventional functions (; See also MPEP 2106.05 (d) (i) receiving or transmitting data over a network…; iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory) to provide/offer/manage insurance products (i.e. managing insurance services (Specification [2])). (Applicant’s arguments 1-4) Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The rejections under 35 USC 103 were withdrawn in the Final Office Action dated 21 May 2026.
Examiner notes that applicant's reply must still either overcome all other rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 and objections or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method and the system of managing insurance services. In the instant case, Claims 11-13, 15-19 are directed to a process. Claims 1-3, 5-9 are directed to a system. Claims 21-24 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Managing insurance services is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (methods of organizing human activity) [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(Currently Amended) A … comprising:
…
connect the …a user … that is associated with a user;
in response to an indication of an…being accessed and an indication of the user… being manipulated to communicate …, automatically identify an insurance provider …and dynamically determine whether to display a collapsible sidebar menu;
…, … associated with the user… and based on a dynamic determination to display the collapsible sidebar menu, the …menu rendered concurrently with the insurance provider …, wherein the … menu is configured to be …updated based on user selections received via collapsible sidebar menu;
…, , at least one option to add or remove insurance products;
… an indication of a selection, at the … menu, of the at least one option to add or remove insurance products;
.. and .…, from the insurance provider …, historical data … in a …associated with one or more insurance products previously purchased by the user, previously identified risk factors associated with the user, or previously identified demographics associated with the user;
identify, based on the indication of the selection of the at least one option to add or remove insurance products and the retrieved historical data, a location associated with the user, and information associated with an active session state, a plurality of insurance products
…, in response to the indication of the selection the … menu to reflect the plurality of insurance products;
… an indication of a selection, at the …menu, of at least one insurance product from the plurality of insurance products:
determine, based on the at least one insurance product and at least one additional product from the plurality of insurance products, a custom insurance service product
generate and …, within the … menu, a price quote for the custom insurance service product, the price quote being determined based on the custom insurance service product and updated in response to an indication of an interaction to adjust the custom insurance service product; and
…, via the ..., interactive controls for modifying or confirming the custom insurance service product.
11. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
connecting … to connect to a user… that is associated with a user;
in response to an indication of an …being accessed and an indication of the user device being manipulated to communicate over the network, automatically identifying an insurance provider … and dynamically determining whether to display a …menu;
…, via a … associated with the user … and based on a dynamic determination to display the … menu, o the… menu rendered concurrently with the insurance provider …, wherein the…menu is updated based on user selections received via the collapsible sidebar menu …;
…, via the … menu, at least one option to add or remove insurance products;
… an indication of a selection, at the … menu, of the at least one option to add or remove insurance products;
…, , historical data associated with one or more insurance products previously purchased by the user, previously identified risk factors associated with the user, or previously identified demographics associated with the user;
identifying, based on the indication of the selection of the at least one option to add or remove insurance products the historical data, a location associated with the user, and information associated with an active session state, a plurality of insurance products
…, , in response to the indication of the selection, the … menu to reflect the plurality of insurance products;
… an indication of a selection, at the … menu, of at least one insurance product from the plurality of insurance products;
determining, based on the at least one insurance product and at least one additional product from the plurality of insurance products, a custom insurance service product
generating and … within the … menu, a price quote for the custom insurance service product, the price quote being determined based on the custom insurance service product and updated in response to an indication of an interaction to adjust the custom insurance service product;and
…, via the … interactive controls for modifying or confirming the custom insurance service product.
21. A …. comprising:
connecting … to connect to a user … that is associated with a user;
in response to an indication of an … being accessed and an indication of the user…being manipulated to communicate over the network, automatically identifying an insurance provider webpage and dynamically determining whether to display a … menu;
…., via a … associated with the user … and based on a dynamic determination to display the …menu, the … menu rendered concurrently with an insurance provider…, wherein the … menu updated based on user selections received via the collapsible sidebar menu
…, via the …menu, at least one option to add or remove insurance products;
…an indication of a selection, at the ….menu, of the at least one option to add or remove insurance products;
… and …,with the insurance provider …, historical data associated with one or more insurance products previously purchased by the user, previously identified risk factors associated with the user, or previously identified demographics associated with the user;
identifying, based on the indication of the selection of the at least one option to add or remove insurance products … the historical data, a location associated with the user, and information associated with an active session state, a plurality of insurance products;
…, …, in response to the indication of the selection, the … menu to reflect the plurality of insurance products;
…, …, an indication of a selection of at least one insurance product from the plurality of insurance products;
determining, based on the at least one insurance product and at least one additional product from the plurality of insurance products, a custom insurance service product;
generating and …, within the …, a price quote for the custom insurance service product, the price quote being determined based on the custom insurance service product and updated in response to an indication of an interaction to adjust the custom insurance service product; and
…, …, interactive controls for modifying or confirming the custom insurance service product.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of …connecting…identify … determine … generate… … … do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. storing…display….display….receive… retrieve… …identify…..update…receive…display …display ) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 11-13, 15-19 are directed to a process. Claims 1-3, 5-9 are directed to a system. Claims 21-24 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (memory devices, servers.. processors… network… graphical user interface… collapsible sidebar menu… webpage…platform…instructions, interface…connecting …device… network… user device.. .) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. ( MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [21] collapsable sidebar may include one or more actionable icons to add, edit, or remove insurance-related products [25-26] memory, user device, processors, instructions; [34] user interfaces )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-3, 5-8, 12-19) introduces the additional element of wherein clauses further defining the elements (i.e. the menu (Claims 2, 12 and 22) , indicator (Claims 5 and 15), insurance related product (Claims 6 and 16), the questionnaire (Claims 8 and 18), user insurance risk factor (Claims 9 and 19)) and steps (i.e. updating.. (Claims 3, 13 and 23), generate…. display… receive… determine.. …(Claims 7, 17, and 24). These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because, these elements amount to mere use of a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. ( MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [25-26] memory, user device, processors, instructions; [34] user interfaces )
Therefore, Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art
The closet prior art of record generally discloses the following: US 10832299 B1, Clauss et al. hereinafter referred to as Clauss which discloses a method and system of data bank which contains/stores data including insurance related data and providing incentives/offers. US 2001/0037265 A1, Kleinberg hereinafter referred to Kleinberg further discloses a method and apparatus for online retailing of insurance goods and services. CA 2841764 Bogle et al. hereinafter referred to as Bogle generally discloses a method and apparatus of questioning a customer and quoting a price based on the answers to the questions including the use of pop-up window features and caching. The prior art does not specifically disclose the limitations of:
in response to an indication of an online shopping platform being accessed and an indication of the user device being manipulated to communicate over the network, automatically identifying an insurance provider webpage and dynamically determining whether to display a collapsible sidebar menu;
displaying, via a graphical user interface associated with the user device and based on a dynamic determination to display the collapsible sidebar menu, the collapsible sidebar menu rendered concurrently with an insurance provider webpage, wherein the collapsible sidebar menu is updated based on user selections received via collapsible sidebar menu;;
displaying, via the collapsible sidebar menu, at least one option to add or remove insurance products;
receiving an indication of a selection, at the collapsible sidebar menu, of the at least one option to add or remove insurance products;
retrieving from a database or memory associated with the insurance provider system, historical data associated with one or more insurance products previously purchased by the user, previously identified risk factors associated with the user, or previously identified demographics associated with the user;
identifying, based on the indication of the selection of the at least one option to add or remove insurance products the historical data, a location associated with the user, and information associated with an active session state, a plurality of insurance products;
updating, in response to the indication of the selection, the collapsible sidebar menu to reflect the plurality of insurance products;
receiving, via the collapsible sidebar menu, an indication of a selection of at least one insurance product from the plurality of insurance products;
determining, based on the at least one insurance product and at least one additional product from the plurality of insurance products, a custom insurance service product;
generating and displaying, within the collapsible sidebar menu, a price quote for the custom insurance service product, the price quote being determined based on the custom insurance service product and updated in response to an indication of an interaction to adjust the custom insurance service product; and
displaying, via the graphical user interface, interactive controls for modifying or confirming the custom insurance service product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160162983 A1- Electronic palette system
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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
