CTNF 18/320,497 CTNF 89427 DETAILED ACTION This Office action is in reply to application no. 18/320,497, filed 19 May 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The applicant uses the term “heatmap” in certain claims as something which is part of a policy generated by the claimed process. The applicant does not define this but exemplifies it. Based on paragraph 20, the broadest reasonable interpretation would encompass any form of information provided to a customer. The applicant does not define “micro-insurance” but simply gives examples. The broadest reasonable interpretation does not differ from “insurance”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a computer program product comprising computer readable storage media. Nothing in the claims or specification limits such media to non-transitory embodiments; in fact, to the contrary, the specification is explicit that “storage may be persistent and/or volatile”. [0029] The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se , the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten , 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S. C. § 101 , Aug. 24, 2009, p. 2. In an effort to assist the applicant in overcoming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the Examiner suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. “Animals – Patentability”, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se . Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) creating an insurance policy, showing it to a customer, and observing the customer. First, managing an insurance policy is both a commercial interaction and a fundamental business practice, each of which is among the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract. Second, this is human mental activity which requires no technology at all. An insurance agent can create a policy by writing it down, can physically hand it to a customer, and can observe the customer’s behavior in a variety of ways. For example, in the realm of automobile insurance, the insurance agent can make inquiries to the state DMV concerning the customer’s driving record, can read a vehicle odometer to see how many miles were driven, can observe the vehicle to see whether it has been in a collision, etc. None of this presents any practical difficulty and none requires any technology beyond, at most, pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer in some of the claims, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond, at most, using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). As the claims only manipulate information about an insurance policy, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned. They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such information, being intangible, is not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data. They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim elements, where any are present, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim. Claim 1 has no additional elements at all. Taking claims 8 and 15 together, they include a processor and memory storing instructions. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered in ordered combination – at most, a generic computer performing a sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claims are simply different embodiments, but are likewise directed, at most, to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 7, 9, 14 and 16 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 20 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 4, 11 and 18 simply require software to have been stored in a particular type of database, and claims 5, 12 and 19 consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, of no patentable significance, and which in any case does nothing to make the invention less abstract. The claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the originally filed application, including the specification and drawing sheets, and finds nothing likely sufficient to overcome this rejection. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Konrardy et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0005291) . With regard to Claim 1: A method for insurance premium determinations, the method comprising: generating a baseline insurance coverage policy for the operation of an object; [0055; a computer is used to identify an insurance policy including a premium; the insurance policy is for coverage of a motor vehicle] presenting a user with the baseline insurance coverage policy prior to an operation of the object; [ id. ; the policy is displayed to the customer for review before it takes effect] and monitoring the operation of the object by the user. [0042; the vehicle may have “limited driver control”; abstract; the system monitors the operation of the vehicle] With regard to Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the baseline insurance coverage policy is comprised of at least a micro-insurance premium value, a time period of coverage, and a heatmap. [0016; a premium is determined and an option to purchase is provided; 0004; the policy rate is for “a specified term”; 0110; recommendations are made to a customer, which reads on the applicant’s use of “heatmap”] With regard to Claim 3: The method of claim 2, further comprising: adjusting the micro-insurance premium value of the baseline insurance coverage policy based on data received during the monitoring of the operation of the object by the user. [abstract; a policy may be adjusted based on risks associated with the operation of the vehicle; 0021; this includes adjusting the cost of the insurance] With regard to Claim 5: The method of claim 1, wherein the user is presented with the baseline insurance coverage policy in a micro-insurance user interface, wherein the micro-insurance user interface includes a user profile of the user, and wherein the user profile includes a record of one or more recommended learning programs previously completed by the user. This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and is therefore considered but given no patentable weight. With regard to Claim 8: A computer system for insurance premium determinations, comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method [0008; a “computer system may include one or more processors and a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions”; the processor executes the instructions] comprising: generating a baseline insurance coverage policy for the operation of an object; [0055; a computer is used to identify an insurance policy including a premium; the insurance policy is for coverage of a motor vehicle] presenting a user with the baseline insurance coverage policy prior to an operation of the object; [ id. ; the policy is displayed to the customer for review before it takes effect] and monitoring the operation of the object by the user. [0042; the vehicle may have “limited driver control”; abstract; the system monitors the operation of the vehicle] With regard to Claim 9: The computer system of claim 8, wherein the baseline insurance coverage policy is comprised of at least a micro-insurance premium value, a time period of coverage, and a heatmap. [0016; a premium is determined and an option to purchase is provided; 0004; the policy rate is for “a specified term”; 0110; recommendations are made to a customer, which reads on the applicant’s use of “heatmap”] With regard to Claim 10: The computer system of claim 9, further comprising: program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, to adjust the micro-insurance premium value of the baseline insurance coverage policy based on data received during the monitoring of the operation of the object by the user. [abstract; a policy may be adjusted based on risks associated with the operation of the vehicle; 0021; this includes adjusting the cost of the insurance] With regard to Claim 12: The computer system of claim 8, wherein the user is presented with the baseline insurance coverage policy in a micro-insurance user interface, wherein the micro-insurance user interface includes a user profile of the user, and wherein the user profile includes a record of one or more recommended learning programs previously completed by the user. This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 8, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and is therefore considered but given no patentable weight. With regard to Claim 15: A computer program product for insurance premium determinations, comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, [0008; a “computer system may include one or more processors and a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions”; the processor executes the instructions] the program instructions comprising: generating a baseline insurance coverage policy for the operation of an object; [0055; a computer is used to identify an insurance policy including a premium; the insurance policy is for coverage of a motor vehicle] presenting a user with the baseline insurance coverage policy prior to an operation of the object; [ id. ; the policy is displayed to the customer for review before it takes effect] and monitoring the operation of the object by the user. [0042; the vehicle may have “limited driver control”; abstract; the system monitors the operation of the vehicle] With regard to Claim 16: The computer program product of claim 15, wherein the baseline insurance coverage policy is comprised of at least a micro-insurance premium value, a time period of coverage, and a heatmap. [0016; a premium is determined and an option to purchase is provided; 0004; the policy rate is for “a specified term”; 0110; recommendations are made to a customer, which reads on the applicant’s use of “heatmap”] With regard to Claim 17: The computer program product of claim 16, further comprising: program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable storage media, to adjust the micro-insurance premium value of the baseline insurance coverage policy based on data received during the monitoring of the operation of the object by the user. [abstract; a policy may be adjusted based on risks associated with the operation of the vehicle; 0021; this includes adjusting the cost of the insurance] With regard to Claim 19: The computer program product of claim 15, wherein the user is presented with the baseline insurance coverage policy in a micro-insurance user interface, wherein the micro- insurance user interface includes a user profile of the user, and wherein the user profile includes a record of one or more recommended learning programs previously completed by the user. This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 15, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and is therefore considered but given no patentable weight . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. in view of Kloeppel et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0119535, filed 16 November 2022) . These claims are similar so are analyzed together. With regard to Claim 4: The method of claim 3, wherein the micro-insurance premium value is adjusted utilizing one or more smart contracts. With regard to Claim 11: The computer system of claim 10, wherein the micro-insurance premium value is adjusted utilizing one or more smart contracts. With regard to Claim 18: The computer program product of claim 17, wherein the micro-insurance premium value is adjusted utilizing one or more smart contracts. Konrardy teaches the method of claim 3, system of claim 10 and computer program product of claim 17, including adjusting the premium as cited above, but does not explicitly teach using a smart contract, but it is known in the art. Kloeppel teaches a system for using telematics data [title] in which “smart contracts” may be used for “adjusting an insurance premium”. [0002] The insurance premiums may be “based upon the detected driving performance” of a vehicle. [0006] Kloeppel and Konrardy are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for modifying vehicle insurance premiums based upon vehicle operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kloeppel with that of Konrardy, as market forces at the time were increasingly driving developers to make use of smart contracts for all manner of financially-related transactions and information; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply storing software on a blockchain (which is what a smart contract is) in the manner of Kloeppel rather than using the storage media of Konrardy; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy et al. in view of Sanchez (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0245238, filed 1 October 2020) . Claims 6, 13 and 20 are similar so are analyzed together. With regard to Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the baseline insurance coverage policy is generated by an agent trained using one or more reinforcement learning methods. With regard to Claim 13: The computer system of claim 8, wherein the baseline insurance coverage policy is generated by an agent trained using one or more reinforcement learning methods. With regard to Claim 20: The computer program product of claim 15, wherein the baseline insurance coverage policy is generated by an agent trained using one or more reinforcement learning methods. Konrardy teaches the method of claim 1, system of claim 8 and computer program product of claim 15, but does not explicitly teach the use of reinforcement learning, and although it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Sanchez teaches a vehicle telematics system for making predictions about driver behavior. [title] It can provide a “rate or discount associated with an insurance policy of the driver”, [0078] The determinations may be made using “reinforcement learning”. [0080] The algorithm is regularly updated based on driver data from the telematics monitoring. [0089] Sanchez and Konrardy are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing insurance rate information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sanchez with that of Konrardy in order to provide broader applicability, as taught by Sanchez; [0007] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Sanchez’ reinforcement learning as the basis of an algorithm in place of Konrardy’s algorithm; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result. These claims are not patentably distinct from their respective parent claims. As no training takes place within the scope of the parent claims nor these claims, details of the training purport to limit steps outside the claimed process and so are considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. With regard to Claim 7: The method of claim 6, wherein the agent is retrained using the one or more reinforcement learning methods based on data received during the monitoring of the operation of the object by the user. [Sanchez, 0089 as cited above in regard to claim 6] With regard to Claim 14: The computer system of claim 13, wherein the agent is retrained using the one or more reinforcement learning methods based on data received during the monitoring of the operation of the object by the user. [Sanchez, 0089 as cited above in regard to claim 13] Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30. 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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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. /SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 2 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 3 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 4 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 5 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 6 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 7 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 8 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 9 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 10 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 11 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 12 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 13 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 14 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 18/320,497 Page 15 Art Unit: 3694
Prosecution Insights