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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 23 December 2025.
Claims 1, 10 and 15 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the remote user devices themselves do not need to implement flexible structure ending functionality and as a result these devices may be implemented via using an apparatus of relatively low complexity. Examiner notes the complexity level of the remote user devices is not claimed and the remote devices not implementing the flexible structure engine is not claimed. 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).
Applicant argues that the claims improve the operation of the computer system by automatically generating risk relationship packages and improving network performance and/or bandwidth. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology. Examiner notes that applicant’s purported improvement (as explained above) comes from potential improvements in the judicial exception, and not from improvements to computers or technology as the recitation of computing components in the claimed invention amounts to no more than invoking computers merely as a tool. See at least MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The recitation of generic computing components to perform an otherwise ineligible judicial exception does not confer patent eligibility.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible due to being directed to an improvement to computer and network security similar to CosmoKey Solution GmbH v. Duo Security LLC, No. 2020-2043 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2021). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In CosmoKey, the claims described “activation of the authentication function, communication of the activation within a predetermined time, and automatic deactivation of the authentication function, such that the invention provides enhanced security and low complexity with minimal user input.” Cosmokey Sols. GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC, 15 F.4th 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In CosmoKey the invention required “ensuring that the authentication function is normally inactive and is activated by the user only preliminarily for the transaction, ensuring that said response from the second communication channel includes information that the authentication function is active, and thereafter ensuring that the authentication function is automatically deactivated” (Claim 1 of the ‘903 patent). Applicant’s claims do not require user input to turn on or off an authentication function, do not transmit the activation status of an authentication function, is not normally deactivated, and does not ensure deactivation after usage. The case of CosmoKey does not apply.
Furthermore, with regards to usage of security features, Examiner respectfully disagrees that they afford eligibility. “The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Id. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Further, the Supreme Court found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would "exalt[] form over substance", because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula. 437 U.S. at 590, 198 USPQ at 197.” See MPEP 2106.05(h). The usage of security features such as firewalls, encryption, and web servers do not altar or affect how the process steps of offering risk coverage and generating risk relationship packages beyond their ordinary benefits. The recitation of these security features do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant cites the precedential decision Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567. Examiner notes that although this is instructive regarding 101 it does not change or affect how the 101 analysis is performed.
Applicant argues that the claim when viewed as a whole is eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for additional elements to provide more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional, the additional elements must in combination provide additional functionality that is not present when considering the elements individually. Examiner notes that the additional elements do not in combination provide for additional functionality.
Applicant argues that the claims may, during an initial filing avoid defining package compositions so that changes may be quickly implemented. Examiner notes that the claims do not recite avoiding defining package compositions. 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).
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a System, Method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for generating risk relationship package using a flexible structure framework. These are a machine, process, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 10, and 15:
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 15:
“transmit,…, a set of tiers for a type of risk coverage based on information in the available type of risk coverage data store,”
“receive,…, an indication of a selected tier of the set of tiers,”
“based on the received indication and a pre-determined rule as input, generate a risk relationship package for the entity…,”
“calculate an overall attribute value for the generated risk relationship package based on an attribute algorithm,”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a back-end application computer server”, “a remote device”, “data store”, “a computer processor”, “a computer memory” or “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Insurance. Insurance is described when offering risk coverage and generating risk relationship packages. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 1:
“…implemented via a back-end application computer server, comprising”
“a risk relationship package data store associated with an encrypted database management system that contains electronic records, each electronic record representing a risk relationship package between an enterprise and an entity, and including, for each risk relationship package, an electronic record identifier and an overall attribute value;”
“an available type of risk coverage data store associated with the enterprise;”
“the back-end application computer server, coupled to the risk relationship package data store and the available type of risk coverage data store, including:”
“a computer processor,”
“a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor, storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to:”
“…to a remote device associated with the entity…”
“…from the remote device…”
“…using an artificial intelligence flexible structure framework;”
“create a new electronic record in the risk relationship package data store, including the calculated overall attribute value;”
“a communication port coupled to the back-end application computer server to facilitate a transmission of data to the remote device to support an interactive display, including an indication of the calculated overall attribute value, via security features and a distributed communication network.”
Claim 10:
“implemented via a back-end application computer server, comprising:”
“accessing, by the back-end application computer server, a risk relationship package data store associated with an encrypted database management system and that contains electronic records, each electronic record representing a risk relationship package between an enterprise and an entity, and including, for each risk relationship package, an electronic record identifier and an overall attribute value;”
“…via security features, from a computer processor of the back-end application computer server to a remote device associated with the entity…”
“…using an artificial intelligence flexible structure framework;”
“creating a new electronic record in the risk relationship package data store, including the calculated overall attribute value.”
Claim 15:
“A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions, that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a risk relationship package creation method implemented via a back-end application computer server, the method comprising:”
“accessing, by the back-end application computer server, a risk relationship package data store with an encrypted database management system and that contains electronic records, each electronic record representing a risk relationship package between an enterprise and an entity, and including, for each risk relationship package, an electronic record identifier and an overall attribute value;”
“…via security features, from the back-end application computer server to a remote device associated with the entity…”
“…using an artificial intelligence flexible structure framework;”
“creating a new electronic record in the risk relationship package data store, including the calculated overall attribute value.”
The computer components (back-end application computer server, remote device, data stores, computer processors, computer memories, and non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic back-end computer server, generic remote device, generic data stores, generic computer processors, generic memories and generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The creating and accessing step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generally creating and generally accessing) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of an artificial intelligence framework and security features is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for creating/accessing various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
(for accessing various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-9, 11-14 and 16-19 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes a search was performed but did not result in a prior art rejection that would render the claims not novel or non-obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Artherton et al. (US 2020/0134727 A1) discloses document creation systems and methods provided for a potential risk relationship between an enterprise and an entity.
Vu et al. (US 8,396,796 B1) discloses offering insurance plants at initial bid prices allowing small business to view the plan offers and opt into one or more of the plan offers.
Virdhagriswaran et al. (US 2010/0274594 A1) discloses a recommendation engine that recommends a plurality of insurance coverages based on a set of data associated with the user.
Birton et al. (US 2007/0156463 A1) discloses an insurance product model used to create a plurality of distinct policies by choosing policy specific data.
Castleman et al. (US 2005/0108064 A1) discloses assembling and marketing insurance packages including a combination of mortgage insurance and one or more insurance components and comprises a risk data repository for storing risk information to be used in determining the risk and cost of providing insurance packages and an insurance data repository including information about available insurance components.
Hibler et al. (US 2019/0311438 A1) discloses usage of machine learning an dAI to perform predictive analytics as well as encryption of data.
“Concannon et al. (WO 2013/059620 A2) discloses managing an insurance value chains having a set of attributes.
Latha R et al. (“Privacy-Preserving Insurance Framework using Zero-Knowledge Proofs and Secure Multi-Party Computation”) discloses frameworks for blockchain based insurance.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691