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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 08, 2025 has been entered.
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on December 08, 2025 for Application No. 18/371,792 filed on September 22, 2023, title: “Prioritization Of Insurance Re-quotations”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. By the 12/08/2025 Response, claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 19 have been amended, no claim has been cancelled or added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application was filed on 09/22/2023 and is a CON of US Application No. 16/675,430 filed on 11/06/2019 (Patented No. 11,810,196) which is a CON of US Application No. 14/327,242 filed on 07/09/2014 (Patented No. 10,482,536). For the purpose of examination, the 07/09/2014 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/22/2023 are accepted for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,482,536 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,810,196. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 1-20 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 10,482,536 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,810,196. That is, 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,482,536 and 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,810,196 fall entirely within the scope of claims 1-20 or, in other words, claims 1-20 are anticipated by 1-20 of U.S. Patent 10,482,536 and 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,810,196. The examined claims recite substantially the same limitations as the reference claims in the patents with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The application and the patents are directed to the same invention of prioritization of insurance re-quotations. The application and the patents have the same inventors and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Per the 07-21-2025 Final Rejection, claim 1 is non-obvious under 35 USC 103 over the prior arts of record. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. An updated prior art search could not identify any art, individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every element of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695