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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the remarks on 9/2/2025.
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.
All claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of :
A terminal device comprising: circuitry configured to communicate with a relay server and an insurance business server, wherein the relay server is configured to anonymize sensing information to be used for selection of an insurance product and provide the anonymized sensing information to the insurance business server, and wherein the insurance business server is configured to transmit insurance proposal information indicating an insurance product selected based on the anonymized sensing information;
present, to a user, by a user interface the insurance proposal information informed from the insurance business server via the relay server;
and control operations related to communication with the relay server the insurance business server, and operations related to presentation of the insurance proposal information by the user interface.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “transmit insurance proposal information indicating an insurance product selected on a basis of the anonymized sensing information” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “a user interface unit, control unit” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yager (U.S. Patent 11,783,423) in view of Kwag (U.S. Patent Pub 2021/0110480)
Re claim 1: Yager discloses:
A terminal device comprising: circuitry configured to communicate with a relay server and an insurance business server, wherein the relay server is configured to anonymize sensing information to be used for selection of an insurance product and provide the anonymized sensing information to the insurance business server, and wherein the insurance business server is configured to transmit insurance proposal information indicating an insurance product selected based on the anonymized sensing information; (see Yager Figure 3 item 305-310 sensing information, item 335 insurance proposal + Fig 1, 5-8 + Fig 2 item 206)
present, to a user, by a user interface the insurance proposal information informed from the insurance business server via the relay server; (see Yager Figure 3 item 335-340 insurance proposal + Fig 1, item 151, 141)
and control operations related to communication with the relay server the insurance business server, and operations related to presentation of the insurance proposal information by the user interface. (see Yager Figure 3 item 335-340 insurance proposal + Fig 1, item 101)
While examiner believes, Yager teaches the features of applicant, should the limitations be argued and for the sake of compact prosecution additional reference, Kwag additionally teaches the limitations of the applicant.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Yager by adapting any features of Kwag.
It is clear that one would be motivated by the teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, both Yager teaches insurance system that extracts sensing information that is adapted in Kwag system see Kwag Figure 2.
Kwag specifically teaches:
A terminal device comprising: circuitry configured to communicate with a relay server and an insurance business server, wherein the relay server is configured to anonymize sensing information to be used for selection of an insurance product and provide the anonymized sensing information to the insurance business server, and wherein the insurance business server is configured to transmit insurance proposal information indicating an insurance product selected based on the anonymized sensing information; (Kwag Fig 1 item 101-113, 123 + Fig 3 item 303-307, 313 + Fig 4 item 401, 413)
present, to a user, by a user interface the insurance proposal information informed from the insurance business server via the relay server; (Kwag Fig 2 item 219, 219 + Fig 1, 3-4)
and control operations related to communication with the relay server the insurance business server, and operations related to presentation of the insurance proposal information by the user interface. (Kwag Fig 2 item 227 + Fig 1, 3-4)
please note the “wherein” only makes these limitations now intended use and holds little patentable weight.
Re claim 2: see claim 1 +
wherein the circuitry controls the communication unit to communicate with the insurance business server without communicating via the relay server, in response to a user operation on the insurance proposal information presented by the user interface. (see Yager Figure 3 item 335-340 insurance proposal + Fig 1, item 151, 141 + Kwag Fig 2 item 219, 219 + Fig 1, 3-4)
Re claim 3: see claim 1 +
wherein after conclusion of a contract of an insurance product proposed by the insurance proposal information, the circuitry is further configured to provide the sensing information to the insurance business server without communicating via the relay server. (see Yager Figure 3 item 335 insurance proposal + Fig 1, 5-8 + Fig 2 item 206 Kwag Fig 1 item 123 + Fig 3 item 313 + Fig 4 item 413)
Re claim 4: see claim 1 +
wherein the circuitrypresents, on the user interface unit, follow-up information regarding an insurance product for which the contract is concluded, the follow- up information being provided from the insurance business server after the conclusion of the contract. (see Yager Figure 3 item 335 insurance proposal + Fig 1, 5-8 + Fig 2 item 206 Kwag Fig 1 item 123 + Fig 3 item 313 + Fig 4 item 413)
Re claim 5: see claim 1 +
wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit the sensing information of a user verified by user authentication processing, to the relay server. (see Yager Figure 3 item 335-340 insurance proposal + Fig 1, item 151, 141 + Kwag Fig 2 item 219, 219 + Fig 1, 3-4)
Re claim 6: see claim 1 +
wherein the circuitry is is further configured to transmit the sensing information to the relay server without including personal information of the user. (see Yager Figure 3 item 335-340 insurance proposal + Fig 1, item 151, 141 + Kwag Fig 2 item 219, 219 + Fig 1, 3-4)
Re claim 7: see claim 1 +
Wherein the circuitry is further configured to collect the sensing information, wherein sensing information includes information regarding physical activity of the user as the sensing information. (see Yager Figure 3 item 335-340 insurance proposal + Fig 1, item 151, 141 + Kwag Fig 2 item 219, 219 + Fig 1, 3-4)
Re claim 8: see claim 1 +
wherein in a case where position information is collected by the circuitry, the circuitry is further configured to use a type of a facility identified by the position information as the sensing information. (see Yager Figure 3 item 335-340 insurance proposal + Fig 1, item 151, 141 + Kwag Fig 2 item 219, 219 + Fig 1, 3-4)
Re claim 9: see claim 1 +
wherein the circuitry is futher configured to transmits the sensing information to the relay server when the sensing information for a predetermined period is collected. (see Yager Figure 3 item 335-340 insurance proposal + Fig 1, item 151, 141 + Kwag Fig 2 item 219, 219 + Fig 1, 3-4)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Answers to the arguments on the amended limitations which change the scope of the claims, will be addressed in the action above. Applicant's art arguments are considered moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al., U.S. Patent Pub 2001/0044733, discloses a method and a device for processing an automobile insurance, and more particularly a method and a device for processing an automobile insurance according to a driving distance and time.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693