DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of January 30, 2026. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendment concerning claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been considered. The previous rejection is withdrawn but there is a new rejection in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “prior to user submission”, the specification lacks written description of this feature, in fact, the specification shows the user submits the data ¶81, which leads to the gathering of the second data. Claim 10 and 19, are similarly rejected, under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites “automatically progressing the workflow by transitioning the progressive GUI from the third subset of the plurality of pages to the fourth subset of the plurality of pages in response to receiving the plurality of responses from web services”, and “automatically progressing the workflow by transitioning the progressive GUI from the third subset of the plurality of pages to the fourth subset of the plurality of pages in response to receiving the plurality of responses from the web services.” While the specification describes receiving responses from web services and presenting them in a fourth subset of pages (0098), it provides no disclosure that such progression occurs automatically in response to receiving the responses. The specification lacks any description of a mechanism, trigger, or system behavior that would cause automatic progression without user intervention. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I). Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… progression of the workflow is triggered automatically in response to receiving the responses from the web services …”. Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis because it recites similar language, “… automatically progress the workflow by transitioning the progressive GUI from the third subset of the plurality of pages to the fourth subset of the plurality of pages in response to receiving the plurality of responses from the web services …”.
Claims 10 and 19 each recite “receiving… converting each response into a machine-interpretable format”. While the specification describes receiving responses from web services and presenting them in a fourth subset of pages (0098), it provides no disclosure that such progression occurs automatically in response to receiving the responses. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. [US Pub No. 2023/0017739 A1] in view of Koa [US Pub No. 2012/0022898 A1].
As per claim 1, Feldman US 20230017739 teaches:
A method in a client facing computer system, the method comprising:
generating a progressive graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the progressive GUI comprises a plurality of pages, with each page presenting a specific task logically arranged into a workflow (see Figs. 13-23);
receiving into a first subset of the plurality of pages of the progressive GUI, first data about a user that is input from a client device (see Figs. 13-14);
querying a set of data sources to identify second data (reads on "public records and third-party data"), wherein the set of data sources stores the second data in data records that are associated with the first data (reads on "about your home" see Fig 15);
retrieving, prior to user submission, at least a portion of the second data from one or more third-party sources included in the set of data sources (see Fig. 15);
prepopulating a second subset of the plurality of pages with the first data and the second data (see Fig 15.);
generating, from a third subset of the plurality of pages (reads on Figs 16-22), [an API request], [wherein the] request comprises at least a portion of the first data and the second data (see ¶ 44 “Selection of a “Next” icon 2250 may submit this information to the insurer and complete the insurance quote request process.”) […]; and
receiving a plurality of responses from the [web service] (see Fig. 23);
presenting, in a fourth subset of the plurality of pages, the plurality of responses from the [web service] (see Fig. 23); and
automatically progressing the workflow by transitioning the progressive GUI from the third subset of the plurality of pages to the fourth subset of the plurality of pages in response to receiving the plurality of responses from the web services (see ¶ 45 “After the insurance quote request process is completed, a quote display 2300 may be provided as illustrated in FIG. 23.”).
Feldman does not teach wherein the web service is a plurality of web services. However, Lawrence US PG Pub 20120022898, does teach:
generating […] a plurality of API calls to a plurality of web services (see ¶ 33 “Each third party insurance provider may have its own format for receiving quote requests. This may be in the form of an http post, SOAP or web service request.“, ¶38 “A process for providing the quote requests to the third party carriers is shown in the flowchart 300 of FIG. 4”), wherein each API request comprises at least a portion of the first data and the second data that is mapped to a corresponding input for the web service (see ¶ 33 “In an insurance context, the information may include name, address, post code, type of insurance being sought (e.g., home and contents, car, medical insurance, etc), ages of drivers in the household, year, make and model of each vehicle to be insured, etc.” and ¶ 34 “The interpreter uses a data mapping engine 16 that matches the user input variables with a quote request form of each carrier, including all carrier/market specific rating variables that would otherwise be validated only at the carrier's website after submission.”)
receiving a plurality of responses from the plurality of web services (see ¶ 39 “At step 401, a first quote is received from a first carrier in a quote file. The quote file is processed to extract the quote information, which is added to a comparative quote file (step 402). The comparative quote file may include a number of fields, such as premium, quote date, period of insurance, a list of what is covered, a list of exclusions, etc. These headings may be provided for each carrier to be included in the quote, e.g., in a table format. If more quotes are to be received (decision step 403), then the process 400 returns to step 401 and is repeated for each quote received”)
presenting […] the plurality of responses from the web services (see ¶ 39 “Once each quote has been processed and the data mapped into the comparative quote file, the result may be a table of comparative quote information that may be presented to a user in any convenient format (step 404).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the process of generating a request for a user of Feldman, the practice of generating multiple requests for a user as taught by Lawrence, in order to allow users to retrieve quotes from multiple carriers through one process, and one of ordinary skill would have seen the results as predictable.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Feldman in view of Lawrence disclose wherein the workflow presented in the progressive GUI is an application for an insurance policy (Feldman 0032).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Feldman in view of Lawrence disclose wherein the first subset of the plurality of pages includes a first page for receiving first data comprising personal identifying information about the user (Feldman 0034).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Feldman in view of Lawrence disclose wherein the first subset of the plurality of pages includes a first page for receiving first data about a home property (Feldman 0040).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Feldman in view of Lawrence disclose wherein the second subset of the plurality of pages includes a second page that is prepopulated with the second data about the home property (Feldman 0041).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Feldman in view of Lawrence disclose wherein the first subset of the plurality of pages includes a first page for receiving first data about an automobile (Feldman 0002).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Feldman in view of Lawrence disclose wherein the second subset of the plurality of pages includes a second page that is prepopulated with the second data about the automobile (Feldman 0034).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Feldman in view of Lawrence disclose wherein the first subset of the plurality of pages includes a page for receiving first data about a rider or an endorsement to be added to the insurance policy.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Feldman in view of Lawrence disclose further comprising: packaging the first data and the second data into a JavaScript object notation (JSON) object, wherein the plurality of API calls includes the JSON object.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. [US Pub No. 2023/0017739 A1] in view of Koa [US Pub No. 2012/0022898 A1] and are further in view of Humpherys [US Patent No. 9,665,911 B2].
Regarding claims 8 and 17, neither Feldman nor Koa disclose however Humpherys teaches wherein the first subset of the plurality of pages includes a page for receiving first data about a rider or an endorsement to be added to the insurance policy (Col. 1 lines 33-41). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Feldman to include the teachings of Humpherys. The rationale to combine the teachings is the combination provides a real-time or dynamic collaborative computer data collection form prototype builder.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. [US Pub No. 2023/0017739 A1] in view of Koa [US Pub No. 2012/0022898 A1] and are further in view of Sylvester et al. [US Pub No. 2014/0074517 A1].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, neither Feldman nor Koa disclose however Sylvester teaches further comprising: packaging the first data and the second data into a JavaScript object notation (JSON) object, wherein the plurality of API calls includes the JSON object (Abstract, 0014, 0050-0053, 0055, claim 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Feldman to include the teachings of Sylvester. The rationale to combine the teachings would be the ability to interface with multiple proprietary insurance administration systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights