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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the request for continued examination filed 29 December 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, addition of claims 21-24 and cancellation of Claims 4, 10, 14 and 20 have been received and are acknowledged.
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 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1)That the recited claims are “directed to specific technological improvements in computer systems … these features provide practical technological solution that enhances computer functionality and user interface performance going beyond any abstract idea. …” (Applicant’s response, 14). Applicant asserts that “… specific technological enhancements… (1) distinguish the inventions recited … from the generic interfaces alleged in the Office Action… (2) provides a practical technological solution to computing problems… .” (Applicant’s response, 14-15) Referencing the specification [3-7] Applicant notes that online insurance shoppers “face challenges in navigating multiple screens and questions… while backend system are burdened with repetitive data processing and inefficient computations…” which “…limit the ability to provide real-time, personalized insurance offerings, among others…”(Applicant’s response, 15-16) Applicant then discusses various recited limitation and restates that “collectively these feature provide a practical technological solution that improves use interface efficiency, reduces backend processing and network overhead and enhances coordination between front-end presentation and backend processing in an online insurance shopping environment. …” (Applicant’s response 16-17). (2) Applicant further argues that the claims recite “ multiple “additional elements” that provide concrete technological features beyond any alleged abstract idea…” including “ a dynamically determined and concurrently rendered collapsible sidebar menu”, “a real-time session-aware updating without page refresh,” “selective retrieval and local caching of historical data”; “identification of insurance products using cached data”, determination of custom insurance service product,” automatic generation and recalculation of a price quote within the sidebar interface…” and ‘interactive controls”. These “additional elements” per Applicant “ integrate any alleged abstract idea in to a practical application by reciting specific technological mechanism that improve the functioning of the computer system sand the operation of the online shopping platform…These coordinated operations provide a concrete improvement in how information is processed, synchronized, and presented across front-end and backend components….impose meaningful limitations on any alleged abstract idea and apply that idea through a specific, technical implementation that enhances interface responsiveness, reduces computational overhead, and improves overall system coordination…demonstrate that the claims of this Application are directed to a practical technological application and recite an inventive concept under the controlling eligibility framework.” (Applicant’s response, 18-19) (3) Applicant asserts that the “additional elements” “amount to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea because they recite concrete technological improvements to the operation of a computer system and an online shopping platform…This technical arrangement enhances interface responsiveness and preserves user context through session-aware state management, rather than relying on conventional page refreshes or static content delivery….localized caching reduces redundant data requests, decreases server load and network traffic, and improves backend processing efficiency by minimizing repeated remote retrievals during an active session….These coordinated operations reflect a specific improvement in how the computer system processes, synchronizes, and presents information in real time, rather than merely executing abstract business logic on a generic computer…Viewed collectively, these technological features impose meaningful limitations on any alleged abstract idea and improve computer functionality by reducing computational overhead, optimizing network usage, and enhancing real-time coordination between front-end presentation and backend processing. Accordingly, the claims recite an inventive concept and satisfy the requirements of Alice Step 2B….”(Applicant’s response 20-21).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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. 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)). The recited claims do not recite an improvement technology (i.e. not ‘significantly more’). At most the instant recited claims are an improvement to the abstract idea. Further as noted below, there is a lack of support for the recited argued amendments. (Applicant’s arguments 1-3) Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner withdraws the rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims dependent on rejected claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency. The amended claims recite as follows:
Claims 1, 11 and 21:
display (- ing), 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 the insurance provider webpage, wherein the collapsible sidebar menu is configured to be automatically updatable without reloading the insurance provider webpage…
retrieve (- ing) and locally cache (- ing), from the insurance provider webpage, historical data stored in a database 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 (- ing), based on the indication of the selection of the at least one option to add or remove insurance products and using the locally cached historical data, a location associated with the user, and information associated with an active session state, a plurality of insurance products
update (- ing), in real time and without refreshing the insurance provider webpage, the collapsible sidebar menu to reflect the plurality of insurance products;
generate (- ing) and display (- ing), within the collapsible sidebar menu, a price quote for the custom insurance service product, the price quote being automatically recalculable in response to an indication of an interaction to adjust the custom insurance service product;
Claims 3, 13 and 23
wherein, to update, in real time and without refreshing the insurance provider webpage, the collapsible sidebar menu, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions ….
Claim 5 and 15
wherein the at least one indicator comprises a first indicator, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to display, via the collapsible sidebar menu and based on the locally cached historical data, a second indicator
Claim 6 and 16
wherein the at least one insurance product comprises a first insurance product, and wherein the locally cached historical data comprises a second insurance product previously selected by the user.
A review of the specification finds no description in the specification / disclosure for the terms/phrases noted in bold above. Applicant is requested to provide reference from the original disclosure to support the amendment of " is configured to be automatically updatable without reloading the insurance provider webpage…;”” locally cache (- ing)/ locally cached…data” “ in real time and without refreshing the insurance provider webpage.. .” and “ being automatically recalculable”…
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 automatically updatable without reloading the insurance provider …;
…, , 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 using the locally cached historical data, a location associated with the user, and information associated with an active session state, a plurality of insurance products
…, in real time and without refreshing the insurance provider webpage, 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 for the user based on the selected at least one insurance product and at least one additional insurance product;
generate and …, within the … menu, a price quote for the custom insurance service product, the price quote being automatically recalculable 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 automatically updatable without reloading the insurance provider …;
…, 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;
…, from 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 and using the locally cached historical data, a location associated with the user, and information associated with an active session state, a plurality of insurance products
…, in real time and without refreshing the insurance provider …, 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 automatically recalculable 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. (New) 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 is automatically updatable without reloading the insurance provider …;
…, 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 …, from 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 and using the …historical data, a location associated with the user, and information associated with an active session state, a plurality of insurance products;
…, in real time and without refreshing the insurance provider …, 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 automatically recalculable 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…cache (i.e. store)…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 and 12) , 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 and 13), receiving… generate…provide …receive …(Claims 7 and 17). 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 automatically updatable without reloading the insurance provider webpage;
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 and locally caching, from the insurance provider webpage, 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 and using the locally cached historical data, a location associated with the user, and information associated with an active session state, a plurality of insurance products;
updating, in real time and without refreshing the insurance provider webpage, 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 automatically recalculable 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 20150178849 A1 – System sand method for Consultative insurance quotes – includes pop-up window features..
US 9,652,805 Bl – Multiple product quoting - bundled insurance product quoting system including pop-up feature
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 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
Prosecution Insights