DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 17 November 2025.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 17, and 19 – 21 are presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 17 November 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 15 – 17, and 19 – 21. Applicant previously cancelled claims 5, 12, and 18.
Amendments to claims 1, 8, 15 – 17, and 19 – 21 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 17, and 19 – 21 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of pending claims, Applicant argues that claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant has now included further technology to implement the claimed functionality, it is merely using the technology as a tool. Applicant further argues that this solves a problem of user interfaces with access to more information than a user can consume. Examiner’s position is that the purported improvement to the user experience and reducing interaction time is both merely an improvement to the abstract idea, and simple “apply it” of using computers to automate otherwise abstract functions. Examiner has identified in previous and current rejection what the abstract idea categories are in independent claims, but has clarified further that determining, ranking, and calculating are particularly mental processes. Now that claims recite “importing” limitations using API gateways of a public network at a private network computing system, that still contains abstract function. Importing information for insurance agents that is authenticated can be performed without technology, and Applicant is applying additional elements that are not specifically required to carry out these steps. Examiner did not consider the elements individually alone, and the entirety of the claimed subject matter has been analyzed according to guidance from the Office. The Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 37 is not equivalent to Applicant’s claims. Applicant here is not claiming the manipulation of an interface and its features. Rather, claims in the instant Application describe utilizing an interface as a display in a well-understood, routine, and conventional use. There is no support for updating icons in Applicant’s disclosure that would explain how they are updated and how that is an improvement in technology. The 35 USC 101 rejection is proper and maintained.
In the remarks regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Applicant argues that Golembiewski does not teach the newly added limitations. Examiner agrees. Prior art rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 17, and 19 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite importing agent identification data for a plurality of insurance agents in response to a request, generating an agent profile for each insurance agent, tracking a volume of contracts sold, number of policy types sold, and agent debt as agent metrics for each insurance agent, calculating a respective agent score for each agent which is calculated based on agent metrics, assigning the respective agent score to each agent profile, transmitting data that renders a display including: an agency criteria field that is user-searchable, a carrier criteria field that is user-searchable, location fields that are user-searchable, and an interactive map, receiving search criteria that includes user inputs in the agency criteria field, carrier criteria field, and location fields, determining agent profiles that satisfy the search criteria of user inputs, ranking agent profiles that meet the search criteria based on agent metric and respective agent scores, and generating a result set of agent profiles that meet the search criteria that are ranked based on agent metrics and respective agent scores for display at the interactive map based on the location fields, displaying icons on the interactive map wherein making a selection displays additional details about the agent, in response to navigation inputs on the map, updating the results set based on geographic region in the map, and displaying updated icons in the map based on the updated results set and the navigation input. This judicial exception is 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. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the computer implemented methods and system are directed to eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of managing interactions between people and business relations, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping, as limitations describe observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion functions such as determining, ranking, and calculating. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are importing agent identification data for a plurality of insurance agents in response to a request, generating an agent profile for each insurance agent, tracking a volume of contracts sold, number of policy types sold, and agent debt as agent metrics for each insurance agent, calculating a respective agent score for each agent which is calculated based on agent metrics, assigning the respective agent score to each agent profile, transmitting data that renders a display including: an agency criteria field that is user-searchable, a carrier criteria field that is user-searchable, location fields that are user-searchable, and an interactive map, receiving search criteria that includes user inputs in the agency criteria field, carrier criteria field, and location fields, determining agent profiles that satisfy the search criteria of user inputs, ranking agent profiles that meet the search criteria based on agent metric and respective agent scores, and generating a result set of agent profiles that meet the search criteria that are ranked based on agent metrics and respective agent scores for display at the interactive map based on the location fields, displaying icons on the interactive map wherein making a selection displays additional details about the agent, in response to navigation inputs on the map, updating the results set based on geographic region in the map, and displaying updated icons in the map based on the updated results set and the navigation input.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a computer-implemented method, private network computing system, application programming interface gateway of a public network, authenticating an identification service in the public network, remote computing device, user interface, navigation inputs, automation, computing system, processors, computer-readable devices, and non-transitory computer-readable medium, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a computer-implemented method, private network computing system, application programming interface gateway of a public network, authenticating an identification service in the public network, remote computing device, user interface, navigation inputs, automation, computing system, processors, computer-readable devices, and non-transitory computer-readable medium. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of agent metrics, assigning profiles, and repetitive updating of results set, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625