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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 2, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on September 2, 2025.
• Claims 1, 10, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 7-9, 11-12, and 25-26 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-6, 10, 13-24, and 27 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the claim objections.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112(a) rejections.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC §101 rejection for being directed to software per se due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 103 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
New Specification objections have been entered due to Applicant’s amendments.
New 35 USC § 112 rejections have been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 10, that there is support in the Specification for the feature of “non-insurance-based data” in the Specification and that the written description requirement is satisfied. In response to the argument, the Examiner notes that the claim has been rejected under 112(b), not 112(a), for being indefinite. As is discussed in the 112(b) rejection below, the limitation of “non-insurance-based data” is overly broad rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11, that “non-insurance-based data” is defined by exclusion and context in the Specification, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not cited to where in the Specification description of “non-insurance-based data” is found such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to what differentiates “non-insurance-based data” from “insurance-based-data.” The Specification is devoid of any description of what constitutes “insurance-based data” and “non-insurance-based data.” Therefore, this feature is new matter.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 11 regarding “artificial intelligence,” the Examiner notes that claim 10 is rejected under 112(b) because the claimed "use of artificial intelligence” to evaluate databases is so broad as to be boundless as to be nearly limitless.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 11-12, that the claims are not a fundamental economic practice but rather a technical solution to problems in data processing, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, claimed inventions allows for providing a longevity credit for pool members participating in a financial investment. The Specification at [0002] states “a method and computing system for effecting a financial investment transaction, providing a longevity credit for pool members participating in the financial investment transaction.” And, the Specification at [0004] states: “Accordingly, there is a need for better financial products such has for improving the retirement planning outcome that provides increased certainty for providing financial returns upon an investor reaching a prescribed age, such as a retirement age, for achieving a retirement goal.” The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of providing a longevity credit for pool members participating in a financial investment, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice including insurance and a commercial and legal interaction, which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 12 that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea and reflect non-convention implementations that improve system performance, accuracy, and security, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include a computer system comprising at least one processor, at least one memory device and a network interface; memory of a data processing system; electronic documentation, wherein said documentation is stored in a secure, encrypted format using an identifier and is accessible via an interface; a plurality of databases; and in electronic communication with a system. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
Furthermore and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 12 that the claims improve system performance, accuracy, and security, in response to this argument, it is noted that mere automation of a process, without improving a technical aspect of that process, does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”).
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the lack of antecedent basis for the claimed limitation of:
“secure transaction protocol”
“external financial system”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 13-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “processing non-insurance-based data.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to what differentiates “non-insurance-based data” from “insurance-based-data.” For example, if the data is “age of a person,” is that insurance-based data because it can be used to underwrite a person for health insurance, or is it “non-insurance-based data” because it does not have to do with insurance on its own. The limitation is overly broad rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation “processing non-insurance-based data” as “processing data.”
Furthermore regarding claim 1, the claim recites “said payout distribution is executed via a secure transaction protocol in electronic communication with at least one external financial system.” The limitation is confusing because it is not clear what is meant by a protocol being in communication with a financial system. The Specification at [0024] describes a protocol as a set of rules; it is therefore unclear how a set of rules can communicate with a financial system. For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation of ” said payout distribution is executed via a secure transaction protocol in electronic communication with at least one external financial system” as “said payout distribution is executed via a secure transaction protocol, the processor being in electronic communication with at least one external financial system” (emphasis added).
Claim 10 provides that a "determining" step "includes use of artificial intelligence to evaluate said plurality of external databases". The claimed "use of artificial intelligence” to evaluate databases is so broad as to be boundless as to be nearly limitless.
The rest of the dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency to a rejected claim.
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 1-6, 10, 13-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim is directed to a method. Therefore, on its face, independent claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claim 1 recites, in part, a method of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites a system configured for processing non-insurance-based data for a constituency of investment pool members wherein each member has an investment transaction product that is in-part dependent upon other member's investment transaction products, comprising: receiving initial user inputs, for defining an investment transaction product for a user in the constituency of pool members, comprising at least: a) an initial funding amount and b) at least one user payout age; generating and instantiating documentation associated with the user investment transaction product including security for the user investment transaction; monitoring for an indication of death for any of said pool members; automatically determining occurrence of a death for one or more pool members prior to their prescribed user payout age based at least in part on said step of monitoring to identify a deceased pool member; in response to said step of automatically determining occurrence of a death of one or more pool members prior to an associated prescribed user payout age, automatically reallocating at least a portion of said deceased pool member's funds, determined to have deceased prior to their prescribed user payout age, to investment funds associated with other pool members, if said deceased pool member died prior to said at least one prescribed user payout age; wherein said reallocation is performed using a rules-based engine configured to apply actuarial weighting and risk distribution parameters, said rules-based engine utilizes age, a longevity factor and the value of said investment transaction product of each said pool member relative to the amounts invested and ages of all pool members; automatically initiating a payout distribution to a pool member upon the occurrence of a pool member reaching their prescribed user payout age wherein the payout includes funds associated with: 1) a value obtained from investment of the pool member's initial funding amount; and 2) a value obtained from funds reallocated to the pool member from other pool members determined to have deceased prior to their prescribed user payout age, wherein said payout distribution is executed via a secure transaction protocol in communication with at least one external financial system.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for providing a longevity credit for pool members participating in a financial investment, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice including insurance and a commercial and legal interaction. The mere nominal recitation of a data processing system do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a computer system comprising at least one processor, at least one memory device and a network interface; memory of a data processing system; electronic documentation, wherein said documentation is stored in a secure, encrypted format using an identifier and is accessible via an interface; a plurality of databases; and in electronic communication with a system are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving inputs for defining investment transactions, formulating documentation, reallocating funds, and provide a payout distribution) 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 (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/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 in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 4-5, 13-24, and 27 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-3, 6, 10, and 17 simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 10, 13-24, and 27 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150161734 A1 (“Shimpi”) discloses managing investment savings of individuals through an investment vehicle suitable for retirement, estate or general investment planning.
US 20110258140 A1 (“Shemtob”) discloses creating pools of investors by grouping together investors who select the same investment maturity date; establishing periodic valuation dates for the investors' accounts; investing investors' funds in the investment portfolios, which the investors selected from the investment portfolio choices made available to them under the program; determining the value of the investors' accounts on the valuation date according to a predetermined formula; and, distributing their account value to the investors who, as of said valuation date, have met the requirements of a predetermined maturity date rule.
US 20200143480 A1 (“Strother”) discloses an administered program consisting of a fixed pool of securitized assets allocated to a fixed population of digitized anonymous pool participants divided into Cohorts based on similar age and attributes. For a period of time, pool survivors receive their own allocation of distribution or dividend and also share pro-rata in a deceased pool member's dividend or distribution (a “Mortality Credit”) until the program's end. The result is an increasing yield investment for surviving pool participants. Modern technology such as digital certificates, smart contracts, encryption technology, electronic fingerprints, voiceprints, retinal scans, facial imaging, DNA testing and block chain and hyper ledger distribution technology will be applied in a sequential and encrypted multi-computer process to maintain administrative purpose and the anonymity of the pool participants whereby there is a guarantee that no pool participant can identify another participant in the same Cohort and/or same pool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694