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
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received December 24, 2025. Claims 1-9 are pending and examined.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
As to the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are moot as these claims have been cancelled.
As to the rejection of Claims 2-3, and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Applicant’s amendments fully address this rejection which is thereby withdrawn.
As to the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are moot as these claims have been cancelled.
As to the rejection of Claims 1-3, and 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and the rejection is thereby maintained as detailed below.
As to the rejection of Claims 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are moot as these claims have been cancelled.
As to the rejection of Claim 1-3, and 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive and the rejection is thereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-7 contain grayscale features. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claims recite a system and method. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 2 is addressed.
(Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents certain methods of organizing human activity, as a method of improving the accuracy of forecasts. Improving the accuracy of forecasts is akin to certain methods of organizing human activity.
A digital method for accuracy-enhanced expert forecasting based on an audit-linked, digital best-estimation framework by applying a controlled decision-making architecture for improving accuracy of forecasts and strengthen of the robustness of expert judgement and fore-cast accuracy, wherein a digital platform provides a digital channel for automated audit-based best-estimation forecast of base rate values for underwriting in complex contextual environments covering heterogenous risk sources and risk-exposure classes, wherein the digital channel being provided with two or more execution members assessing the digital platform using network-enabled devices via a data transmission network, wherein the digital platform at least comprises processing circuitry configured to capture data from a plurality of sensors and the network-enabled devices, the digital method comprising: executing, by the two or more execution members using the network-enabled devices at least the steps of: (i) determining a forecasted value for a definable future time window benchmarking the audit-based, digital best-estimation framework to a starting point value based on one or more historical databases, (ii) determining a 90% confidence interval range for the determined starting point value by a lower bound value and an upper bond value of the interval range, wherein the upper and lower bound value is set equal-distant to the starting point value of the forecasted value, wherein the starting point value is part of the confidence interval value range, and wherein an actually measured value of the forecasted value in the future time window is forecasted to measurably deviate with a 90% probability within the 90% confidence interval range, and (iii) selecting one or more possible scenarios each having a definable probability distribution and applying a sensitivity analysis by at least varying a time-based range of an observation window, wherein if the forecasted value deviates further from the starting point value as a predefined threshold value by the variation, the starting point value is adjusted, in that the forecasted values of the at least two execution member are transmitted and captured by a best-estimation engine determining a best-estimation forecasted value based on the captured forecasted values of the at least two execution member, and in that the plurality of sensors is coupled to the data processing engine and connected to the digital platform, wherein the accuracy the forecasted base rates is measured by the plurality of sensors providing a digital loop-back process by monitoring and verifying the different forecasted base rates via the sensory link of the plurality of sensors to the real physical world based on applying a machine learning technique that is pre-trained on past forecasting outcomes.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are considered as follows:
“a digital platform provides a digital channel”. This is merely “apply it” this sever is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“digital platform using network-enabled devices via a data transmission network, wherein the digital platform at least comprises processing circuitry”. This is merely “apply it” this sever is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“configured to capture data from a plurality of sensors and the network-enabled devices”. This is an extra solution activity, akin to data gathering.
“network-enabled devices”. This is merely “apply it” this sever is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“plurality of sensors is coupled to the data processing engine and connected to the digital platform”. This is an extra solution activity, akin to data gathering and data transmitting.
“plurality of sensors providing a digital loop-back process…via the sensory link of the plurality of sensors to the real physical world”. This is an extra solution activity, akin to data gathering and data transmitting.
“based on applying a machine learning technique that is pre-trained on past forecasting outcomes” This is merely “apply it” this sever is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
(Step 2B) 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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of improving the accuracy of forecasts, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware. The additional elements do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. sensors).
Analysis of dependent claims 3, and 5-8, recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more. For example, Claims 3 & 7 further narrow the limitation “method for accuracy-enhanced expert forecasting based on an audit-linked best-estimation framework” of Claim 2 by “determining”, which is “apply it”. Claims 5 & 6 further narrow the limitation “method for accuracy-enhanced expert forecasting based on an audit-linked best-estimation framework” of Claim 2 by “applying”, which is “apply it”. Claim 8 further narrows the limitation “two or more execution members” of Claim 2. System Claim 1 and method Claim 9 are similarly rejected as the method Claim 2.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE S KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between M-F 10am-2pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Gart may be reached at (571)-273-3955. 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.
/IRENE KANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
5/18/2026
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights