DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 the Application
The Amendment filed May 4, 2026 has been entered. Claim 30 was canceled; claims 21-29, 31-34, and 37-40 were amended. Claims 21-29 and 31-40 are pending and presented to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Correspondence mailed February 4, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims rendered moot the double-patenting rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Correspondence mailed February 4, 2026, which rejections are withdrawn at this time.
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 21-29 and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because 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.
Claims 21-29 and 31-40 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 21 -: 21, a learning- system for verifying user-provided information associated with a user, the learning- system comprising: a receiving configured to receive (i) user-provided information, and (ii) moving image of user; and a -processor in communication with the receiving, the -processor programmed to: train a learning- model- to probabilistically correlate one or more aspects of appearance with one or more personal and/or health-related characteristics based upon a of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics; input the moving image of the user into the trained learning- model-, the trained learning- model- configured to determine one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user; and compare the one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user to the user-provided information to verify the user-provided information. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 22 -: 22, the system as set forth in claim 21, wherein the -processor is further programmed to: generate a term of insurance coverage based upon at least one of the one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user or the verified user-provided information, wherein the insurance coverage is health insurance. Claim 23 -: 23, the system as set forth in claim 22, wherein the term of insurance coverage includes an insurance premium or discount. Claim 24 -: 24, the system as set forth in claim 21, wherein the moving image of the user includes an image. Claim 25 -: 25, the system as set forth in claim 21, wherein the moving image of the user includes a selfie. Claim 26 -: 26, the system as set forth in claim 21, wherein to train the learning- model-, the -processor employs neural receptive fields to overlap. Claim 27 -: 27, the system as set forth in claim 21, wherein to train the learning- model-, the -processor employs a deep learning. Claim 28 -: 28, the system as set forth in claim 21, wherein the moving image of the user includes a -video of the user, the -processor being configured to determine at least one of a pulse, drug use, or a glucose level of the user by analyzing the -video. Claim 29 -: 29, the system as set forth in claim 21, wherein the one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics include at least one of age, sex, weight, height, ethnicity, lifespan, cause of death, tobacco use, alcohol use, drug use, diet, existing medical conditions, or risk factors for future medical conditions. Claim 31 -: 31, the system as set forth in claim 21, wherein the -processor is further configured to use the one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics to substantially determine a term of insurance coverage. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 32 -: 32, a learning- system for verifying user-provided information associated with a user, the learning- system comprising: a receiving configured to receive (i) user-provided information, and (ii) otherwise non-diagnostic conventional moving image of the user; and a -processor employing and in communication with the receiving, the -processor programmed to: train, by executing, a learning- model- to probabilistically correlate one or more aspects of appearance with one or more personal and/or health-related characteristics based upon a of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics; input the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional moving image of the user into the trained learning- model-, the trained learning- model- configured to determine one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user; and compare the one... [id. at 21], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 33 -: 33, the system as set forth in claim 32, wherein the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional image of the user includes an image. Claim 34 -: 34, the system as set forth in claim 32, wherein the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional image of the user includes a selfie. Claim 35 -: 35, the system as set forth in claim 32: wherein neural receptive fields to overlap. Claim 36 -: 36, the system as set forth in claim 32, wherein a deep learning. Claim 37 -: 37, the system as set forth in claim 32: wherein the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional image of the user includes a -video of the user, the -processor being configured to determine at least one of a pulse, drug use, or a glucose level of the user by analyzing the -video. Claim 38 -: 38, the system as set forth in claim 32, wherein the one... [id. at 29], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 39 -: 39, a method for verifying user-provided information associated with a user using, the method performed by a learning- computing system including a receiving and a -processor, the method comprising: receiving, by the receiving, (i) user-provided information, and (ii) moving image of the user; training, by the -processor, a learning- model- to probabilistically correlate one or more aspects of appearance with one or more personal and/or health-related characteristics based upon a of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics; inputting, by the -processor, the moving image of the user into the trained learning- model-, the trained learning- model- configured to determine one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristic characteristics of the user; and comparing, by the -processor, the one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user to the user-provided information to verify the user-provided information. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 40 -: 40, the method as set forth in claim 39, further comprising: generating, by the -processor, a term of insurance coverage based upon at least one of the one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user or the verified user-provided information, wherein the term of insurance coverage includes an insurance premium or discount. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: using images and voice recordings to facilitate underwriting life insurance as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 21, 32, and 39 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 21 and is described by the steps of independent claim 32 and is described by the steps of independent claim 39.
Claim 21 (as amended): Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 21 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "machine learning (ML)", "ML", "computer", "data", "circuit", "a processor", "the processor", "model", and "database". However, independent claim 21 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "machine learning (ML)", "ML", "computer", "data", "circuit", "a processor", "the processor", "model", and "database" of independent claim 21 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a machine learning (ML) computer … ML computer system comprising", "a data receiving circuit configured … data of user; and", "a processor in communication with … the processor programmed to", "train an ML model to … personal and/or health-related characteristics", "input the moving image data … of the user; and" and "compare the one or more … verify the user-provided information") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 21 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 32 (as amended): Materially regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 32 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "machine learning (ML)", "ML", "computer", "data", "circuit", "a processor", "a neural network", "the processor", "the neural network", "model", and "database". However, independent claim 32 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "machine learning (ML)", "ML", "computer", "data", "circuit", "a processor", "a neural network", "the processor", "the neural network", "model", and "database" of independent claim 32 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a machine learning (ML) computer … ML computer system comprising", "a data receiving circuit configured … of the user; and", "a processor employing a neural … the processor programmed to", "train, by executing the neural … personal and/or health-related characteristics", "input the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional … of the user; and" and "compare the one or more … verify the user-provided information") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a processor employing a neural … the processor programmed to", "train, by executing the neural … personal and/or health-related characteristics" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a processor employing a neural … the processor programmed to", "train, by executing the neural … personal and/or health-related characteristics", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 32 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Claim 39 (as amended): Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes as further necessitated by Applicant's amendment, independent claim 39 (as amended) further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "machine learning (ML)", "data", "circuit", "a processor", "the processor", "ML", "model", and "database". However, independent claim 39 (as amended) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "machine learning (ML)", "data", "circuit", "a processor", "the processor", "ML", "model", and "database" of independent claim 39 (as amended) recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a method for verifying user-provided … processor, the method comprising", "receiving, by the data receiving … data of the user", "training, by the processor, an … personal and/or health-related characteristics", "inputting, by the processor, the … of the user; and" and "comparing, by the processor, the … verify the user-provided information") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "training, by the processor, an … personal and/or health-related characteristics" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 32 also applies hereto. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "training, by the processor, an … personal and/or health-related characteristics", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 32 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 39 (as amended) remains ineligible notwithstanding Applicant's amendments.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 21, 32, and 39 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 22-29, 31, 33-38, and 40 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 24 and 33: Dependent claims 24 and 33 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "digital" of dependent claims 24 and 33 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 26 and 35: Dependent claims 26 and 35 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "a convolutional neural network including a plurality of receptive fields which are tiled to overlap" of dependent claims 26 and 35 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 27 and 36: Dependent claims 27 and 36 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "deep learning neural network" of dependent claims 27 and 36 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 28 and 37: Dependent claims 28 and 37 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "a video", and "the video" of dependent claims 28 and 37 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 31: Dependent claim 31 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "automatically" of dependent claim 31 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22: Dependent claim 22 adds an additional method step of "wherein the processor is further programmed to", "generate a term of insurance coverage based upon at least one of the one … user or the verified user-provided information, wherein the insurance coverage is health insurance". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 22 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 22 is ineligible.
Claim 23: Dependent claim 23 adds an additional method step of "wherein the term of insurance coverage includes an insurance premium or discount". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 23 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 23 is ineligible.
Claim 24: Dependent claim 24 adds an additional method step of "wherein the moving image data of the user includes a digital image". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 24 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 24 is ineligible.
Claim 25: Dependent claim 25 adds an additional method step of "wherein the moving image data of the user includes a selfie". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 25 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 25 is ineligible.
Claim 26: Dependent claim 26 adds an additional method step of "wherein to train the ML model, the processor employs a convolutional neural network including a plurality of receptive fields which are tiled to overlap". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 26 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 32 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 32, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017), pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 26 is ineligible.
Claim 27: Dependent claim 27 adds an additional method step of "wherein to train the ML model, the processor employs a deep learning neural network". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 27 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 32 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 32, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 27 is ineligible.
Claim 28: Dependent claim 28 adds an additional method step of "wherein the moving image data of the user includes a video of the user, … drug use, or a glucose level of the user by analyzing the video". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 28 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 32 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016), identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, (Fed. Cir. 2017), see previous legal citation herein Re: Claim 26, and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015), pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 28 is ineligible.
Claims 29 and 38: Dependent claims 29 and 38 add an additional method step of "wherein the one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics include at least … drug use, diet, existing medical conditions, or risk factors for future medical conditions". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 29 and 38 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 29 and 38 are ineligible.
Claim 31: Dependent claim 31 adds an additional method step of "wherein the processor is further configured to use the one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics to substantially automatically determine a term of insurance coverage". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 31 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 31 is ineligible.
Claim 33: Dependent claim 33 adds an additional method step of "wherein the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional image data of the user includes a digital image". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 33 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 33 is ineligible.
Claim 34: Dependent claim 34 adds an additional method step of "wherein the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional image data of the user includes a selfie". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 34 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 34 is ineligible.
Claim 35: Dependent claim 35 adds an additional method step of "wherein the neural network is a convolutional neural network including a plurality of receptive fields which are tiled to overlap". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 35 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 32 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 26 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) See discussion above regarding Claim 26 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 35 is ineligible.
Claim 36: Dependent claim 36 adds an additional method step of "wherein the neural network is a deep learning neural network". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 36 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 32 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 27 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) See discussion above regarding Claim 27 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 36 is ineligible.
Claim 37: Dependent claim 37 adds an additional method step of "wherein the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional image data of the user includes a video of … drug use, or a glucose level of the user by analyzing the video". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 37 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 32 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 28 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 28 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 37 is ineligible.
Claim 40: Dependent claim 40 adds an additional method step of "generating, by the processor, a term of insurance coverage based upon at least one … information, wherein the term of insurance coverage includes an insurance premium or discount". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 40 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 40 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Response to Arguments
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted May 4, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed February 4, 2026 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the February 4, 2026 Non-Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• The Applicant argued:
"The rejection of Claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. º 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is respectfully traversed.
"The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A. []
"[T]hat the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes[,] Applicant respectfully disagrees.
'[T]hat the claims are directed to using images and voice recordings to facilitate underwriting life insurance and therefore certain methods of organizing human activity[,] Applicant respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits that the present independent claims do not recite "insurance" and rather are directed to technical improvements in the technical field of health-related technology[].
"[T]hat the claims recite mental processes[,] Applicant respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits that the human mind is not equipped to perform the recitations of the present claims, for example, the recitations relating to training an executing a machine learning model.
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims do not recite a judicial exception. [] Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are directed to technical improvements in the technical field of health-related technology[].
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the current 35 U.S.C. º 101 rejection has been overcome at least under Step 2A, Prong 1[].
"[E]ven assuming arguendo that the independent claims recite a judicial exception (which Applicant does not concede), the present claims are subject-matter eligible under the second prong of Step 2A. []
"[T]hat any alleged judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application[,] Applicant respectfully disagrees.
'[T]hat the claims do not recite technical improvements recited in the present Application[,] Applicant respectfully disagrees as Claim 21, as a representative example, enables user-provided information relating to the user's health to be verified without needing to obtain physical tests or samples such as those preformed during a conventional medical review. [P]aragraph [0003] of the present Application explains that "providers may require collecting samples of bodily fluids to assess an applicant's health status" while paragraph [0020] of the present Application explains that "machine learning techniques may be used to extract the relevant personal and/or health-related information . .. from images and/or voice recordings of those applicants without needing to acquire samples of bodily fluids or conduct conventional medical reviews" [].
"[] Applicant[]s [] respectfully submit that Claim 45 of the present Application, as representative example, is analogous to Claim 3 of Example 47 of the USPTO July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
"Similar to [] Claim 3 of Example 47 [], the present claims train a machine learning model, analyze data inputted to the model based upon the training of the model, and output one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of a user.
"To solve at least the above technical problems and/or implement the above technical solutions, and in accordance with the specification of the present Application, Claim 21 describes training a model and outputting from the model one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of a user, thereby enabling the system to verify user-provided information via comparison of the user-provided information to the output of the model[.]
'[I]n this case, "a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and . . . the claim reflects the asserted improvement," which is sufficient to establish a practical application. MPEP º 2106.05(a).
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the current 35 U.S.C. º 101 rejection has been overcome at least under Step 2A. Prong 2[].
"[T]he present claims also satisfy Step 2B. Applicant respectfully submits that it is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art at least to perform the steps of Claim 21 [].
"[] Applicant respectfully submits that the current 35 U.S.C. º 101 rejection has additionally or alternatively been overcome at least under Step 2B[]."
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 7-11).
However, the above-quoted arguments submitted May 4, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 7-11 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Considerably, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea.
Regarding the Applicant's reference(s) to one or more Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, the Office notes that the examples are presented as hypothetical and only intended to be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth therein as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.
Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); iv. Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747; vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database's functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For Step 2B, relying on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional, the claims in the present application are ineligible under Step 2B. For example, the courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the claims neither recite nor require: e.g. "without needing to acquire samples of bodily fluids or conduct conventional medical reviews". The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Regarding obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant's arguments submitted May 4, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed February 4, 2026 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered and are persuasive.
• The Applicant argued:
'No combination of Stempora and Giger describes or suggests an system as recited in amended Claim 21. [N]o combination of Stempora and Giger describes or suggests a processor programmed to "train an ML model to probabilistically correlate one or more aspects of appearance with one or more personal and/or health-related characteristics based upon a database of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics," and "input the moving image data of the user into the trained ML model, the trained ML model configured to determine one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user." Stempora and Giger are each silent with respect to training an ML model based upon a database of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics. [] Applicant respectfully submits that the º 103 rejection of Claim 21 has been overcome.
"Claims 23, 24, and 28-31 depend from Claim 21, and when the recitations of Claims 23, 24, and 28-31 are considered in combination with the recitations of Claim 21, Applicant respectfully submits that the [] 103 rejection of Claims 23, 24, and 28-31 likewise has been overcome.
'The rejection of Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. [] 103 as being unpatentable over Stempora in view of Giger and U.S. Publication No. 2011/0161100 to Peak et al. ("Peak") is respectfully traversed.
'Peak does not describe or suggest a processor programmed to "train an ML model to probabilistically correlate one or more aspects of appearance with one or more personal and/or health-related characteristics based upon a database of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics," and "input the moving image data of the user into the trained ML model, the trained ML model configured to determine one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user." Peak therefore does not cure the deficiencies of Stempora and Giger in describing or rendering obvious the recitations of Claim 21.
"Claim 25 depends from Claim 21, and when the recitations of Claim 25 are considered in combination with the recitations of Claim 21, Applicant respectfully submits that the [] 103 rejection of Claim 25 likewise has been overcome.
'The rejection of Claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. [] 103 as being unpatentable over Stempora in view of Giger and U.S. Publication No. 2015/0193718 to Shaburov et al. ("ShaburovÆ) is respectfully traversed.
'Shaburov does not describe or suggest a processor programmed to "train an ML model to probabilistically correlate one or more aspects of appearance with one or more personal and/or health-related characteristics based upon a database of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics," and "input the moving image data of the user into the trained ML model, the trained ML model configured to determine one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user." Shaburov therefore does not cure the deficiencies of Stempora and Giger in describing or rendering obvious the recitations of Claim 21.
"Claim 26 depends from Claim 21, and when the recitations of Claim 26 are considered in combination with the recitations of Claim 21, Applicant respectfully submits that the [] 103 rejection of Claim 26 likewise has been overcome.
'The rejection of Claims 27, 32, 33, and 36-40 under 35 U.S.C. º 103 as being unpatentable over Stempora in view of Giger and U.S. Publication No. 2016/0259994 to Ravindran et al. ("Ravindran") is respectfully traversed.
'No combination of Stempora, Giger, and Ravindran describe or suggest a system as recited in Claim 32. [N]o combination of Stempora, Giger, and Ravindran describe or suggest a processor programmed to "train, by executing the neural network, an ML model to probabilistically correlate one or more aspects of appearance with one or more personal and/or health-related characteristics based upon a database of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics," and "input the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional moving image data of the user into the trained ML model, the trained ML model configured to determine one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user." Stempora, Giger, and Ravindran are each silent with respect to training an ML model based upon a database of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics. [] Applicant respectfully submits that the º 103 rejection of Claim 32 has been overcome.
"Claims 33 and 36-38 depend from Claim 32, and when the recitations of Claims 33 and 36-38 are considered in combination with the recitations of Claim 32, Applicant respectfully submits that the [] 103 rejection of Claims 33 and 36-38 likewise has been overcome.
"To the extent independent Claim 39 includes recitations similar to the recitations of Claim 32, Applicant respectfully submits that the º 103 rejection of Claim 39 likewise has been overcome for at least the reasons described above with respect to Claim 32.
"Claims 40 depends from Claim 39, and when the recitations of Claim 40 are considered in combination with the recitations of Claim 39, Applicant respectfully submits that the [] 103 rejection of Claim 40 likewise has been overcome.
"The rejection of Claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. [] 103 as being unpatentable over Stempora in view of Giger, Peak, and Ravindran is respectfully traversed.
'Peak does not describe or suggest a processor programmed to "train, by executing the neural network, an ML model to probabilistically correlate one or more aspects of appearance with one or more personal and/or health-related characteristics based upon a database of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics," and "input the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional moving image data of the user into the trained ML model, the trained ML model configured to determine one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user." Peak therefore does not cure the deficiencies of Stempora, Giger, and Ravindran in describing or rendering obvious the recitations of Claim 32.
"Claim 34 depends from Claim 32, and when the recitations of Claim 34 are considered in combination with the recitations of Claim 32, Applicant respectfully submits that the [] 103 rejection of Claim 34 likewise has been overcome.
"The rejection of Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. [] 103 as being unpatentable over Stempora in view of Giger, Shaburov, and Ravindran is respectfully traversed.
'Shaburov does not describe or suggest a processor programmed to "train, by executing the neural network, an ML model to probabilistically correlate one or more aspects of appearance with one or more personal and/or health-related characteristics based upon a database of moving images of individuals having known personal and/or health-related characteristics," and "input the otherwise non-diagnostic conventional moving image data of the user into the trained ML model, the trained ML model configured to determine one or more probabilistically determined personal and/or health-related characteristics of the user." Shaburov therefore does not cure the deficiencies of Stempora, Giger, and Ravindran in describing or rendering obvious the recitations of Claim 32.
"Claim 35 depends from Claim 32, and when the recitations of Claim 35 are considered in combination with the recitations of Claim 32, Applicant respectfully submits that the [] 103 rejection of Claim 35 likewise has been overcome."
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 11-15).
The above-quoted arguments are persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20150025917 A1 by Stempora; Jeffrey discloses System And Method For Determining An Underwriting Risk, Risk Score, Or Price Of Insurance Using Cognitive Information; wherein: in one embodiment a system for determining a level of risk associated with an individual for underwriting purposes comprises at least one sensor that provides information, such as a camera providing one or more images or video for example, used to determine one or more properties of the individual.
USPGPub No. US 20010043729 A1 by Giger, Maryellen L. et al. discloses Method, System And Computer Readable Medium For An Intelligent Search Workstation For Computer Assisted Interpretation Of Medical Images; wherein: a method, system and computer readable medium for an intelligent search display into which an automated computerized image analysis has been incorporated.
USPGPub No. US 20110161100 A1 by Peak; David F. et al. et al. discloses INSURANCE PROCESSING SYSTEMS AND METHODS USING MOBILE DEVICES FOR MEDICAL MONITORING; wherein: pursuant to some embodiments, systems, methods and devices are provided for insurance processing including installing a medical monitoring application associated with a user of a mobile device, the medical monitoring application including configuration data associated with at least a first medical monitoring rule, displaying, under control of the medical monitoring application, a series of instructions to cause the mobile device to be configured to communicate with at least a first biometric sensor, collecting, based on the at least first medical monitoring rule, a set of biometric data from the at least first biometric sensor, and transmitting the set of biometric data from the mobile device to a remote processing system for processing a request for insurance.
USPGPub No. US 20150193718 A1 by Shaburov; Victor et al. et al. discloses EMOTION RECOGNITION FOR WORKFORCE ANALYTICS; wherein: methods and systems for videoconferencing include generating work quality metrics based on emotion recognition of an individual such as a call center agent.
USPGPub No. US 20160259994 A1 by Ravindran; Arun et al. et al. discloses DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING USING CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS; wherein: according to an example, a digital image may be processed by an ensemble of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to classify objects in the digital image.
USPGPub No. US 20100241465 A1 by Amigo; Andrew J. et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SENSOR-ENHANCED HEALTH EVALUATION.
USPGPub No. US 20090265190 A1 by Ashley; Thomas R. et al. discloses System for classification and assessment of preferred risks.
USPGPub No. US 20040122709 A1 by Avinash, Gopal B. et al. discloses Medical procedure prioritization system and method utilizing integrated knowledge base.
USPGPub No. US 20040122787 A1 by Avinash, Gopal B. et al. discloses Enhanced computer-assisted medical data processing system and method.
USPGPub No. US 20040153362 A1 by Bauer, Alan Rex et al. discloses Monitoring system for determining and communicating a cost of insurance.
USPGPub No. US 20150039351 A1 by Bell; Paul et al. discloses Categorizing Life Insurance Applicants to Determine Suitable Life Insurance Products.
USPAT No. US 10825095 B1 to Bernico; Michael L. et al. discloses Using images and voice recordings to facilitate underwriting life insurance.
USPGPub No. US 20090240524 A1 by Bluth; Charles P. discloses COMMUNITY BASED MANAGED HEALTH KIOSK AND REMOTE DIAGNOSIS SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20150278642 A1 by CHERTOK; Michael et al. discloses NEURAL NETWORK IMAGE REPRESENTATION.
USPGPub No. US 20060218023 A1 by Conrad; Gerald L. discloses Single premium term life insurance.
USPGPub No. US 20150287143 A1 by Gabriel; Matthew F. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING UNDERWRITING USING A RISK ORDER APPROACH.
USPGPub No. US 20120078664 A1 by HASAN; MALIK M. et al. discloses SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATION OF HEALTH CARE DATA.
USPGPub No. US 20100131299 A1 by HASAN; MALIK M. et al. discloses SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATION OF HEALTH CARE DATA.
USPGPub No. US 20080183508 A1 by Harker; Phillip E. et al. discloses Methods for Real-Time Underwriting.
USPGPub No. US 20140180980 A1 by Hido; Shohei et al. discloses INFORMATION IDENTIFICATION METHOD, PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20130290023 A1 by Hight; H. Thomas et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR UNDERWRITING INSURANCE POLICIES BASED ON CARDIOVASCULAR RISK.
USPGPub No. US 20050228692 A1 by Hodgdon, Darren W. discloses Incentive based health care insurance program.
USPGPub No. US 20150294420 A1 by Hu; Guizhou discloses SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS THAT FACILITATE LIFE INSURANCE UNDERWRITING WITH INCOMPLETE DATA.
USPGPub No. US 20090099877 A1 by Hyde; Roderick A. et al. discloses Systems and methods for underwriting risks utilizing epigenetic information.
USPGPub No. US 20110213625 A1 by JOAO; RAYMOND ANTHONY discloses Apparatus and method for processing and/or for providing healthcare information and/or helathcare-related information.
USPGPub No. US 20140081667 A1 by JOAO; RAYMOND ANTHONY discloses APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING AND/OR PROVIDING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION AND/OR HEALTHCARE-RELATED INFORMATION WITH OR USING AN ELECTRONIC HEALTHCARE RECORD OR ELECTRONIC HEALTHCARE RECORDS.
USPGPub No. US 20150331997 A1 by JOAO; RAYMOND ANTHONY discloses APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING AND/OR PROVIDING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION AND/OR HEALTHCARE-RELATED INFORMATION WITH OR USING AN ELECTRONIC HEALTHCARE RECORD OR ELECTRONIC HEALTHCARE RECORDS.
USPGPub No. US 20150112702 A1 by JOAO; RAYMOND ANTHONY et al. discloses APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING AND/OR FOR PROVIDING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION AND/OR HEALTHCARE-RELATED INFORMATION WITH OR USING AN ELECTRONIC HEALTHCARE RECORD AND GENETIC INFORMATION AND/OR GENETIC-RELATED INFORMATION.
USPGPub No. US 20020032583 A1 by Joao, Raymond Anthony discloses Apparatus and method for processing and/or for providing healthcare information and/or healthcare-related information.
USPAT No. US 6283761 B1 to Joao; Raymond Anthony discloses Apparatus and method for processing and/or for providing healthcare information and/or healthcare-related information.
USPGPub No. US 20100042440 A1 by Joao; Raymond Anthony discloses Apparatus and method for processing and/or for providing healthcare information and/or healthcare-related information.
USPGPub No. US 20100114602 A1 by Joao; Raymond Anthony et al. discloses Apparatus and method for processing and/or for providing healthcare information and/or healthcare-related information.
USPAT No. US 8332244 B1 to Karam; Matthew D. et al. discloses Determining premiums for life insurance policies.
USPGPub No. US 20150254754 A1 by Lang; Noah B. et al. discloses METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR CONSUMER EVALUATION OF INSURANCE OPTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20120123798 A1 by Lanzalotti; John A. discloses Health Care Financing Systems And Methods For Determination Of The Patient Specific Prospective Lump Sum Payment For An Episode Of Care Arising From An Insurable Event.
USPGPub No. US 20090312668 A1 by Leuthardt; Eric C. et al. discloses Computational system and method for memory modification.
USPGPub No. US 20100041958 A1 by Leuthardt; Eric C. et al. discloses Computational system and method for memory modification.
USPGPub No. US 20100042578 A1 by Leuthardt; Eric C. et al. discloses Computational system and method for memory modification.
USPGPub No. US 20140058755 A1 by Macoviak; John A. et al. discloses REMOTELY-EXECUTED MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY INCLUDING EMERGENCY AUTOMATION.
USPGPub No. US 20020029157 A1 by Marchosky, J. Alexander discloses Patient - controlled automated medical record, diagnosis, and treatment system and method.
USPGPub No. US 20040117215 A1 by Marchosky, J. Alexander discloses Record system.
USPGPub No. US 20130253957 A1 by Markman; Barry S. discloses Method, Apparatus and System for Providing Insurance Coverage and Claims Payment for Single Event Surgical and Diagnostic Procedures.
USPGPub No. US 20110173022 A1 by Mayer; Gregg L. et al. discloses Systems and Methods for Electronic Health Management.
USPGPub No. US 20100049555 A1 by McConnell; Rachel Ann et al. discloses METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF INSURING FERTILITY CARE LIFESTYLE AFFAIRS.
USPGPub No. US 20150088553 A1 by McKinney; Roderick J. et al. discloses Methods, Systems, and Servers for Processing Health Insurance Claims.
USPGPub No. US 20080201172 A1 by McNamar; Richard T. discloses METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR USING AN XBRL MEDICAL RECORD FOR DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE.
USPGPub No. US 20110022420 A1 by Morse; Robert D. et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INSURANCE UNDERWRITING.
USPGPub No. US 20110040582 A1 by Mullins; Kieran discloses ONLINE SYSTEM AND METHOD OF INSURANCE UNDERWRITING.
USPGPub No. US 20120123809 A1 by READ; Katherine et al. discloses System and Method for Processing Data Related to Insurance Coverage for a Plurality of Risks.
USPAT No. US 7624032 B2 to Rabson; Kenneth Steven et al. discloses Method of managing the business of a medical scheme.
USPGPub No. US 20130035962 A1 by Ranicar, III; James A. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA RELATED TO GROUP BENEFIT INSURANCE HAVING CRITICAL ILLNESS COVERAGE.
USPGPub No. US 20130151283 A1 by Ranicar, III; James A. et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA RELATED TO GROUP BENEFIT INSURANCE HAVING CRITICAL ILLNESS COVERAGE.
USPGPub No. US 20110125536 A1 by Reynolds; Leslie Ann et al. discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADMINISTERING INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED BEFORE COMPREHENSIVE UNDERWRITING.
USPGPub No. US 20040120557 A1 by Sabol, John M. et al. discloses Data processing and feedback method and system.
USPGPub No. US 20040122719 A1 by Sabol, John M. et al. discloses Medical resource processing system and method utilizing multiple resource type data.
USPAT No. US 7319970 B1 to Simone; Charles B. discloses Method and apparatus for lifestyle risk evaluation and insurability determination.
USPGPub No. US 20080319855 A1 by Stivoric; John M. et al. discloses ADVERTISING AND MARKETING BASED ON LIFEOTYPES.
USPGPub No. US 20100324936 A1 by Vishnubhatla; Suresh-Kumar Venkata et al. discloses PHARMACY MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION WITH BEDSIDE REAL-TIME MEDICAL EVENT DATA COLLECTION.
USPGPub No. US 20040122790 A1 by Walker, Matthew J. et al. discloses Computer-assisted data processing system and method incorporating automated learning.
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 SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Tuesday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 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, Matthew S. 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 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.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 05/14/2026
Prosecution Insights