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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment and
arguments filed 11/12/2025.
The applicant’s representative argued that the claims as amended overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. A 35 USC 101 rejection is found below based on the claims as amended.
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 2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15 AND 17- 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 12 is directed to a method. Claim 2 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claim 2 recites:
2. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
A product designer module comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive a user specification of a set of filtering criteria, wherein the set of filtering criteria includes a tag associated with a campaign and only options offered under the campaign are presented, wherein the tag includes one or more of the following a first tag and/or a second tag;
obtain operational data corresponding to the set of filtering criteria from an analytics engine, wherein, wherein in response to a determination that the set of filtering criteria includes the first tag, the operational data includes a first operational data, and wherein in response to a determination that the set of filtering criteria includes the second tag, the operational data includes a second operational data, wherein the first operational data is different from the second operational data;
display, using a graphical user interface, insurance product model elements and corresponding operational data subject to the set of filtering criteria, wherein a view of at least a portion of the insurance product model is augmented at least in part by at least some of the obtained operational data, and wherein the displaying of the insurance product model elements comprises to:
determine that corresponding operational data associated with at least one insurance product model element fails to satisfy the set of filtering criteria; and
in response to a determination that the corresponding operational data associated with the at least one insurance product model element fails to satisfy the set of filtering criteria, omit including the at least one insurance product model element in the insurance product model elements; and
based at least in part on at least of the obtained operational data, augment, in the graphical user interface, a view of at least a portion of the insurance product model; and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or more processors with instructions.
Claims 4 and 14 recite: wherein the set of filtering criteria corresponds to one or more availability indicators. Accordingly, claims 4 and 14 recite a description of criteria to apply to the functions of claims 4 and 14. Description data are determined to be non-statutory subject matter by the Courts.
Claims 5 and 15 recite wherein the set of filtering criteria is automatically generated. Accordingly, claims 5 and 15 recite a description of criteria to apply to the functions of claims 5 and 15. Description data are determined to be non-statutory subject matter by the Courts.
Claims 7 and 17 recite wherein an insurance policy is associated with the campaign tag at a time the insurance policy becomes bound. Accordingly, claims 7 and 17 recite a description of criteria to apply to the functions of claims 7 and 17. Description data are determined to be non-statutory subject matter by the Courts.
Claims 8 and 18 recite wherein the set of filtering criteria includes a time period and an option to filter only display options available during the time period. Accordingly, claims 8 and 18 recite a description of criteria to apply to the functions of claims 8 and 18. Description data are determined to be non-statutory subject matter by the Courts.
Claims 9 and 19 recite wherein the operational data comprises transactional data, and wherein the transactional data comprises one or more of policies, quotes, claims, billing, premiums, profit, fraud, or user behavior related data. Accordingly, claims 9 and 19 recite a description of criteria to apply to the functions of claims 9 and 19. Description data are determined to be non-statutory subject matter by the Courts.
Claims 10 and 20 wherein the operational data is obtained that is to aggregate operational data from a tool. Claims 10 and 20 recite a data gathering function which the Courts have found to be non-statutory.
Claims 11 and 21 wherein the operational data is obtained from a policy that is to manage a plurality of insurance policies and aggregate operational data from a tool. Accordingly, Claims 11 and 21 recite a data gathering function which the Courts have found to be non-statutory.
Claim 12 recites:
12. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
12. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
receiving, using one or more processors of a product designer module, a user specification of a set of filtering criteria, wherein the set of filtering criteria includes a tag associated with a campaign and only options offered under the campaign are presented, wherein the tag includes one or more of the following: a first tag and/or a second tag;
obtaining, using the one or more processors of the product designer module, operational data corresponding to the set of filtering criteria from an analytics engine, wherein in response to a determination that the set of filtering criteria includes a first operational data, and wherein in response to a determination that the set of filtering criteria includes the second tag, the operational data includes a second operational data, wherein the first operational data is different from the second operational data; and
displaying, using a graphical user interface insurance product model elements and corresponding operational data subject to the set of filtering criteria wherein a view of at least a portion of the insurance product model is augmented at least in part by at least some of the obtained operational data, and wherein the displaying of the insurance product model elements comprises:
determining that corresponding operational data associated with at least one insurance
product model element fails to satisfy the set of filtering criteria; and
in response to a determination that the corresponding operational data associated with the
at least one insurance product model element fails to satisfy the set of filtering criteria, omitting to include the at least one insurance product model element in the insurance product model elements; and
based at least in part on at least some of the obtained operational data, augmenting, in the graphical user interface, a view of at least a portion of the insurance product model.
As per claims 2 and 12, applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of “receive” or “receiving” are considered as data gathering functions. Functions of “presenting” are considered as insignificant post solution activities.
Here, the claimed concept continues to fall into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance and mitigating risk). The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of presenting insurance model elements and corresponding operational data subject to a set of filtering criteria.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations found above as being understood to be additional limitations.
These limitations performing steps of presenting insurance model elements and corresponding data subject to a set of filtering criteria to a user computing an amount of an insurance claim merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or processor or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ( see MPEP 2106.05(1) ), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer and “any kind of digital computer” including generic commercially available devices.
Performance of receiving, obtaining and displaying data by a computer processor amount to performing steps which amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP Z106.05(g).
Performing steps by generic computer processors with memories merely limits the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
The claims recite receiving data and obtaining data using one or more processors and presenting data on a display. The breadth of these limitations reasonably includes collecting information and displaying data on a display.
Reciting a “graphical user interface”, an “analytics engine”, a one or more "processors” and “memory” is understood ad to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors which receive data, obtain data, process data and display data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of obtaining operation data and presenting to be displayed insurance product model elements and corresponding operation data subject to a set of filtering data.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving and collecting data by electronic means or hardware amounts to receiving and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir.
2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, LiS USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Presenting data amounts to an insignificant post solution activity.
Independent claim 12 recites the same limitations as claim 2. The same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2 are equally applicable to claims 12.
Positively reciting a graphical user interface, an engine”, computer processor and memory storing software instructions does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for receiving data, obtaining data and presenting data which are performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processors” and “memory”, system and system are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, 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.
Accordingly, claims 2 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael W. Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
December 1, 2025