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
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered September 24, 2025 for the patent application 18/462,032.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 3 - 5, 15 – 17, 19 and 20 are currently amended in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on August 06, 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 - 20 are either directed to a method or system or computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method claim 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system claims 1 and 20 and computer readable claim 19. Claim 15 recites the limitations of:
( A ) detecting, by one or more processors, a request from a user to generate a customized insurance policy,
( B ) causing, by one or more processors, the ML chatbot to generate customized code to be used in an insurance application, wherein the customized code implements the customized insurance policy, and
( C ) integrating, by one or more processors, the customized code in the insurance application, wherein the customized code, when executed by one or more processors of an application server, cause the one or more processors of the application server to:
collect user information from a user device,
determine whether a change of insurance policy for the user is required, wherein the insurance policy is comprised in the insurance application, and
responsive to determining that a change of insurance policy is required, automatically update the insurance policy in the insurance application based upon the required change.
These limitations without the bolded limitations above, cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
More specifically, these limitations cover performance of the limitations as a fundamental economic practice.
In summary, if claim 15 limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
The use of the one or more processors or any of the bolded limitations in claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Similar arguments apply to claims 1, 19 and 20.
Therefore, the above mentioned judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by merely applying generic computer components (bolded elements).
Furthermore, the “detecting” and “integrating” steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering/transmitting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In addition, supported by specification, the computer hardware are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component., see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer is not indicative of a practical application).
Claim 15, limitation ( A ) – ( C ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0121], which discloses “Similarly, the methods or routines described herein may be at least partially processor-implemented. For example, at least some of the operations of a method may be performed by one or more processors or processor-implemented hardware modules. The performance of certain of the operations may be distributed among the one or more processors, not only residing within a single machine, but deployed across a number of machines. In some example embodiments, the processor or processors may be located in a single location (e.g., within a home environment, an office environment or as a server farm), while in other embodiments the processors may be distributed across a number of geographic locations.“.
Also, claim 15, limitation ( B ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0008], which discloses “In another aspect, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (1) detect a request from a user to generate a customized insurance policy, (2) cause a machine learning (ML) chatbot or an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot to generate customized code to be used in the insurance application, wherein the customized code implements the customized insurance policy, and/or (3) integrate the customized code in the insurance application, wherein the customized code, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (a) receive user information from a user's mobile device or other computing device, (b) determine whether a change of insurance policy for the user is required, wherein the insurance policy is comprised in the insurance application, and/or (c) responsive to determining that a change of insurance policy is required, automatically update the insurance policy in the insurance application based upon the required change, and/ or (i) create an update to the insurance policy, and/or (ii) send or transmit a proposed update to the insurance policy to the user's mobile device or other computing device for user review, modification, and/or approval. The instructions may direct additional, less, or alternate functionality, including that discussed elsewhere herein.“.
Also, claim 15, limitation ( C ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0096], which discloses “The server 160 or the chatbot 150 may prepare the recommended insurance policy further based upon data stored in the database associated with the user, data associated with other users, data associated with existing or past insurance policies, the user's recent and/or expected life events, data associated with other users who have similar life events, and/or life events associated with other users who have similar profiles with the user.“.
Also, claim 15, limitation ( C) above in Applicant’s specification para [0092], which discloses “In one embodiment, in the initial session 320b, if the user shows interest in a customized insurance policy, the server 160 may start a communication session 320b in which the chatbot 150 may serve to generate appropriate responses and collect information from the user's input. The user's input may be a non-standardized format dependent on the hardware (i.e., the user device) and software (e.g., the operating system of the user device) used by the user. For example, the user's input may be in a text format, in an audio format, in an image format, and/or in a video format. The server 160 may parse the inputs by the NLP functionality 148, an image analysis functionality (not shown), an audio analysis functionality (not shown), or a video analysis functionality (not shown) and convert the input or information included therein into a standardized format compliant with the database 126. For example, the input or information may be converted to a.csv format, a format, and/or be encrypted. The information stored in standardized format may be stored in the database 126 associated with the user, transmitted to a data analysis module for data analysis purposes, and/or used to train, retrain, fine-tune ML models. Alternatively, the chatbot 150 may parse the inputs and convert the inputs or information included therein into a standardized format.“. Similar arguments apply to claims 1, 19 and 20.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1, 15, 19 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims 1, 15, 19 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (bolded elements above) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. In conclusion, merely "applying" the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1, 15, 19 and 20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 - 14 and 16 – 18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 2 - 14 and 16 - 18 are further define the abstract idea or further define the extra-solution activities that are present in independent claim 1 thus abstract idea correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity as presented above. Claims 2 - 14 and 16 - 18 clearly further define the abstract idea as stated above and further define extra-solution activities such as presenting data and transmitting/receiving data.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 - 14 and 16 - 18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Regarding claim 2, this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claim 2 states “further comprising the application server”. These steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/analysis, which is a form of insignificant extra- solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, these claims merely recite, "collect second user information from the user device subsequent to collecting the first user information; determine whether a difference between the first user information and the second user information exceeds a predetermined threshold for an insurance policy change; responsive to determining that the change of the user information exceeds the predetermined threshold, initiate an initial session allowing the user to customize an insurance policy; and responsive to a user input to customize the insurance policy, generate a recommended insurance policy and present the recommended insurance policy to the user via the user device.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar arguments can be made for claim 16.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, these claims merely provide further detail regarding accepted the recommendation, recited in claims 1 and 15. Merely stating, “detect that the user accepted the recommended insurance policy as the customized insurance policy.”. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea. Similar arguments can be made for claim 16.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, these claims merely recite, "receive, via the user device, a user input comprising user data, wherein the user input is in a non-standardized format; convert the user data from the non-standardized format to the standardized format compliant to be used by the data analysis module; transmit, to the data analysis module, the user data in the standardized format to generate an analysis result; and responsive to receiving the analysis result, generate the recommended insurance policy based at least partially on the analysis result.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar arguments can be made for claim 18.
Regarding claim 6, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the target code, recited in claim 1. Merely stating “locate target code in the insurance application, wherein the target code implements a current insurance policy for the user; and cause the ML chatbot to generate the customized code in a similar format with the target code.". This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, this claim merely add further description to the process of “wherein causing the ML chatbot to generate the customized code further comprises transmitting the location of the target code to the ML chatbot.”. This amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting as described in reference to claims 1, 15 (see analysis above). Merely describing the generate the customized code does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, this claim merely add further description to the process of “creating an update to the insurance policy; and transmit a proposed update to the insurance policy to the user device for user review, modification, and/or approval,”, which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 9, this claim merely recite, "determine whether there is a substantial change of location of the user for a significant period of time, and responsive to determining that there is a substantial change of location of the user for a significant period of time, incorporate the substantial change of location into the required change of insurance policy.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 10, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the processing the loss, recited in claim 1. Merely stating, “the user relocating to a region of lower safety, the user relocating to a region of higher safety, and the user relocating to another country, the required change of insurance policy associated with the user relocating to the region of lower safety is to increase a coverage of the insurance policy, the required change of insurance policy associated with the user relocating to the region of higher safety is to decrease the coverage of the insurance policy, and the required change of insurance policy associated with the user relocating to another country is to change the coverage of the insurance policy or suspend the insurance policy.”. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11, this claim merely recite, " determine whether a change of the user information exceeds a predetermined threshold for an insurance policy change, and responsive to determining that the change of the user information exceeds the predetermined threshold, incorporate the change of the user information into the required change of insurance policy.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 12, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the ML chatbot, recited in claims 1. Merely stating “cause the ML chatbot to generate a plurality of versions of customized code; and send the plurality of versions of customized code to a human expert for selection.". This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13, this claim merely add further description to the process of “cause the ML chatbot to generate a plurality of versions of customized code; and send the plurality of versions of customized code to a trained model for selection.”. This amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting as described in reference to claim 1, (see analysis above). Merely describing the generate a plurality of versions of customized codes does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 14, This claim merely add further description to the process of “code compliant for use in the insurance application; code associated with a prior demand related to insurance activities; and code compliant for use for insurance activities,”, which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
As a result, such limitations do not overcome the requirements as described above. Therefore, claims 2 - 14 and 16 – 18 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 - 20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 15 – 18, 1 – 14 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Edward W. Breitweiser et al. (Pat. # US 11,544,807 B1 – herein referred to as Breitweiser) in view of Scott Tsuchiyma et al. (Pub. # US 2023/0385939 A1 – herein referred to as Tsuchiyma).
Re: Claim 15, Breitweiser discloses a computer-implemented method for efficiently generating customized code using a machine learning (ML) chatbot, the method comprising:
detecting, by one or more processors, a request from a user to generate a customized insurance policy (Breitweiser, col. 23, lines 1 – 9 – As shown by step 906, the policyholder may enroll in the Beneficiary App service. The enrollment may be in the form of an electronic communication requesting enrollment from the policyholder (e.g., by email or text) that is received by the computer system. In response to a request to enroll, the computer system may create a Beneficiary App record associated with the policyholder. The Beneficiary App record may store information associated with the Beneficiary App services provided to the policyholder.),
causing, by one or more processors, the ML chatbot to generate customized code to be used in an insurance application, wherein the customized code implements the customized insurance policy (Breitweiser, col. 19, lines 47 – 64 – In another aspect, a computer system for estate handling or claim handing via a chatbot avatar having the personality and/or voice mimicking that of an insured may be provided. The computer system may include one or more local or remote processors, transceivers, servers, and/or sensors configured to: (1) receive and/or store personal and/or financial information received from an insured (or first or storage user); (2) generate a chatbot avatar for the insured based upon the personal information received from the insured; (3) receive a request from an access user (or second user) to access the stored information; (4) communicate with the access user by a simulated conversation with the insured via the chatbot avatar to identify the requested stored information; and/or (5) provide the identified information to the, access user in connection with or during the simulated conversation to facilitate estate or claim handling. The computer system may include additional, less, or alternate functionality, including that discussed elsewhere herein.).
However, Breitweiser does not expressly disclose:
integrating, by one or more processors, the customized code in the insurance application, wherein the customized code, when executed by one or more processors of an application server, cause the one or more processors of the application server to:
collect user information from a user device,
determine whether a change of insurance policy for the user is required, wherein the insurance policy is comprised in the insurance application, and
responsive to determining that a change of insurance policy is required, automatically update the insurance policy in the insurance application based upon the required change.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tsuchiyma discloses:
integrating, by one or more processors, the customized code in the insurance application, wherein the customized code, when executed by one or more processors of an application server, cause the one or more processors of the application server to:
collect user information from a user device (Tsuchiyma, [0503] – A computer-implemented method can include receiving information about a customer from an agent through an agent API and an agent token, the agent token uniquely identifying the agent; verifying the agent using the agent token with an Agent Service; determining authorized workflows available for the agent based on information about the agent in the Agent Service; creating an association between the agent and the customer and the information; creating a referral token for the customer and a URL, the URL linking to a carrier-defined landing site; providing the referral token and the URL to the agent; receiving the referral token from a carrier or carrier landing site; verifying the referral token; processing the information about the customer using a workflow that the agent is authorized to use; creating a populated application using the information about the customer and the workflow; providing the information about the customer to the carrier or carrier landing site; and marking the referral token as used.),
determine whether a change of insurance policy for the user is required, wherein the insurance policy is comprised in the insurance application (Tsuchiyma, [0505] – A computer-implemented method including encapsulating workflow definitions in a workflow data structure, the workflow definitions including a workflow owner, workflow name, workflow version, product definitions, product pricing, underwriting rules, and question sets; using the workflow data structure to start processing customer information to create an application for the customer to complete using the question sets in the workflow data structure, review the application responses based on allowed answers in the question sets in the workflow data structure; process the application for underwriting using the underwriting rules in the workflow structure; determining pricing for the customer based on the result of underwriting and the product pricing defined in the workflow data structure; locking the workflow data structure from changes; determining that one or more workflow definitions is incorrect or no longer valid; receiving one or more new workflow definitions; creating a new workflow data structure with an updated workflow version.), and
responsive to determining that a change of insurance policy is required, automatically update the insurance policy in the insurance application based upon the required change (Tsuchiyma, [0015] – In some instances, the digital application is a life insurance application, and the plurality of parameters include a price and term associated with a life insurance policy.).
Therefore, in light of the teachings of Tsuchiyma, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Breitweiser, motivation according to one KSR Exemplary Rationale where a known technique is used to improve similar methods and systems in the same way by providing the integration platform can lock the workflow, causing the locked workflow to be immutably stored in a repository at the integration platform. The integration platform sends the digital application to a client device, the digital application configured to be presented on the client device in accordance with the sequence of operations.
Re: Claim 16, Breitweiser discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising:
collecting, by one or more processors, user information from the user device (Breitweiser, col. 11, lines 13 – 24 – FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary computer-implemented method that may be performed through the use of networked system 10 to set up the access users for the storage user's account, and to notify the access users of their designation as an access user and associated roles. As shown by step 300, the host component 14 may provide the storage user with prompts requesting information on access users the storage user desires to designate. The requested access user information may include, for example, identification of the access users, their contact information (e.g., email addresses and text message addresses) and their relationship to the storage user.);
determining, by one or more processors, whether a change of the user information exceeds a predetermined threshold for an insurance policy change (Breitweiser, col. 10, lines 26 – 35 – As shown by step 206, in some embodiments the host component 14 may provide the storage user with a communication offering them the option to set up one or more automated information gathering tools to collect one or more items of information. The information gathering tools may, for example, be used to perform the initial collection of the information (e.g., as an alternative to receiving the information, including any associated documents, as part of steps 200 and 202), and/or to periodically collect and thereby update the information following its initial collection.);
responsive to determining that the change of the user information exceeds the predetermined threshold, initiating, by one or more processors, an initial session allowing the user to customize an insurance policy (Breitweiser, col. 10, lines 26 – 35 – As shown by step 206, in some embodiments the host component 14 may provide the storage user with a communication offering them the option to set up one or more automated information gathering tools to collect one or more items of information. The information gathering tools may, for example, be used to perform the initial collection of the information (e.g., as an alternative to receiving the information, including any associated documents, as part of steps 200 and 202), and/or to periodically collect and thereby update the information following its initial collection.); and
responsive to a user input to customize the insurance policy, generating a recommended insurance policy and present the recommended insurance policy to the user via the user device (Breitweiser, col. 9, lines 37 – 46 – In certain embodiments of these types of the host computer 14 evaluates the received information along with information representative of existing customers to determine whether the requester is an existing customer. If the decisioning step determines that requester does not meet requirements for the product, for example if the requester has not provided sufficient contact information and/or has been determined to not be a current customer, the requester may be sent a communication stating that the request is denied as shown by step 108.).
Re: Claim 17, Breitweiser discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein detecting the request from the user to generate the customized insurance policy comprises:
detecting, by one or more processors, the user accepts the recommended insurance policy as the customized insurance policy (Breitweiser, col. 9, lines 27 – 36 – As shown by step 104, information is received by the host component 14 in response to the requests (e.g., in text or voice response form). The host component 14 may perform decisioning based upon the received information to deter mine whether to accept the requester at step 106. In some embodiments, the product provider may accept as subscribers or other customers only storage users with which it has a current established relationship. Product providers that are insurance companies may, for example, provide the product only to existing customers.).
Re: Claim 18, Breitweiser discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein generating the recommended insurance policy comprises:
receiving, via the user device, user input comprising user data, wherein the user input is in a non-standardized format (Breitweiser, col. 31, lines 2 – 20 – In some embodiments, the user data, and/or other collected data may be anonymized and/or aggregated prior to receipt such that no personally identifiable information (PII) is received. In other embodiments, the system may be configured to receive user data and/or other collected data that is not yet anonymized and/or aggregated, and thus may be configured to anonymize and aggregate the data. In such embodiments, any PII received by the system is received and processed in an encrypted format, or is received with the consent of the individual with which the PII is associated. In situations in which the systems discussed herein collect personal information about individuals, or may make use of such personal information, the individuals may be provided with an opportunity to control whether such information is collected or to control whether and/or how such information is used. In addition, certain data may be processed in one or more ways before it is stored or used, so that personally identifiable information is removed.);
converting, by one or more processors, the user data from the non-standardized format to a standardized format compliant to be used by a data analysis module, the data analysis module configured to process data in a standardized format (Breitweiser, col. 17, lines 24 – 32 – The method may include communicating notice to the access user that they have been identified by the insured as an access user entitled to access information upon the occurrence of a triggering event associated with the insured and/or an insurance claim, wherein the occurrence of the triggering event is determined from processor analysis of sensor data received from a mobile device, a smart home controller, wearable device, or smart or autonomous vehicle associated with the insured.);
transmitting, to the data analysis module, the user data in the standardized format to generate an analysis result (Breitweiser, col. 17, lines 44 – 53 – The method may include communicating notice to the access user that they have been identified by the insured as an access user entitled to access information upon the occurrence of a triggering event associated with the insured and/or an insurance claim, wherein the occurrence of the triggering event is determined from processor analysis of vehicle telematics data (including speed, acceleration, coming, braking, location, destination, origin, and/or route information) associated with the insured and/or received from an insured computing device, or smart or autonomous vehicle. The claim may be an auto insurance claim.); and
responsive to receiving the analysis result, generating, by one or more processors, the recommended insurance policy based at least partially on the analysis result (Breitweiser, col. 17, lines 24 – 32 – The method may include communicating notice to the access user that they have been identified by the insured as an access user entitled to access information upon the occurrence of a triggering event associated with the insured and/or an insurance claim, wherein the occurrence of the triggering event is determined from processor analysis of sensor data received from a mobile device, a smart home controller, wearable device, or smart or autonomous vehicle associated with the insured.).
Re: Claim 1, Claim 1 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 15. Therefore, claim 1 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 15.
Re: Claim 2, Breitweiser discloses the computer system of claim 1,
further comprising the application server (Breitweiser, col. 7, lines 12 – 23 – In some embodiments, the network interface components may include one or more web servers 50 and one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) 52 to implement interfaces between the host component 14, chatbot component 16 and information storage component 18 and the network components 20. Examples of user interface com ponents 38 may include display 54, keypad 56 and graphical user interface (GUI) 58. Embodiments of computer system 30 may include other conventional or otherwise known components to provide secure information storage and access services in accordance with embodiments described herein.).
Re: Claim 3, Claim 3 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 16. Therefore, claim 3 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 16.
Re: Claim 4, Claim 4 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 17. Therefore, claim 4 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 17.
Re: Claim 5, Claim 5 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 18. Therefore, claim 5 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 18.
Re: Claim 6, Breitweiser discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein to cause the ML chatbot to generate the customized code, the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:
locate target code in the insurance application, wherein the target code implements a current insurance policy for the user (Breitweiser, col. 14, lines 36 – 49 – The method 800 may include, via one or more processors, transceivers, sensors, and/or servers, determining or detecting events pertinent to the policyholder's policies and loans from policy and loan information, such as home, vehicle, or medical events 810. For instance, vehicle telematics data (such as speed, location, acceleration, cornering, or braking data), vehicle sensor (including audio and image) data, home sensor (including audio and image) data, home telematics data (electrical and water usage data, occupancy data, motion data, etc.), wearable sensor data, mobile device sensor or other data, smart watch data, smart glasses data, and/or other sensor data may be collected and analyzed to determine insurance-related events (such as damage to vehicles or homes, or medical events).); and
cause the ML chatbot to generate the customized code in a similar format with the target code (Breitweiser, cols. 29 - 30, lines 55 – 6 – The computer readable media may be, for example, but is not limited to, a fixed (hard) drive, diskette, optical disk, magnetic tape, semiconductor memory such as read-only memory (ROM), net or other communication network or link. The article of manufacture containing the computer code may be made and/or used by executing the code directly from one medium, by copying the code from one medium to another medium, or by transmitting the code over a network.).
Re: Claim 7, Breitweiser discloses the computer system of claim 6,
wherein causing the ML chatbot to generate the customized code further comprises transmitting the location of the target code to the ML chatbot (Breitweiser, col. 14, lines 50 – 63 – Additionally or alternatively, the method 800 may include, via one or more processors, transceivers, sensors, and/or servers, monitoring for events pertinent to the policyholder's policies and loans from policy and loan information 812. For instance, vehicle telematics data (such as speed, location, acceleration, cornering, or braking data), vehicle sensor (including audio and image) data, home sensor (including audio and image) data, home telematics data (electrical and water usage data, occupancy data, motion data, etc.), wearable sensor data, mobile device sensor or other data, smart watch data, smart glasses data, and/or other sensor data may be continuously collected and analyzed to determine insurance-related events (such as damage to vehicles or homes, or medical events).).
Re: Claim 8, Breitweiser discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the customized code, when executed by the one or more processors of the application server, further cause the one or more processors of the application server to perform at least one of:
creating an update to the insurance policy (Breitweiser, col. 10, lines 26 – 26 – As shown by step 206, in some embodiments the host component 14 may provide the storage user with a communication offering them the option to set up one or more automated information gathering tools to collect one or more items of information. The information gathering tools may, for example, be used to perform the initial collection of the information (e.g., as an alternative to receiving the information, including any associated documents, as part of steps 200 and 202), and/or to periodically collect and thereby update the information following its initial collection.); and
transmit a proposed update to the insurance policy to the user device for user review, modification, and/or approval (Breitweiser, col. 10, lines 26 – 35 – As shown by step 206, in some embodiments the host component 14 may provide the storage user with a communication offering them the option to set up one or more automated information gathering tools to collect one or more items of information. The information gathering tools may, for example, be used to perform the initial collection of the information (e.g., as an alternative to receiving the information, including any associated documents, as part of steps 200 and 202), and/or to periodically collect and thereby update the information following its initial collection.).
Re: Claim 9, Breitweiser discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein:
the user information comprises location of the user and a time stamp associated with the location of the user (Breitweiser, col. 12, lines 9 – 13 – In some embodiments, the notification may include a link to a website (e.g., website 15) as a source of the information. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments, the notification may occur at the time that the access user setup is completed, at the time of the triggering event, or both.), and
the customized code, when executed by the one or more processors of the application server, further cause the one or more processors of the application server to:
determine whether there is a substantial change of location of the user for a significant period of time (Breitweiser, col. 12, lines 49 – 54 – In some embodiments, host component 14 may notify access users of the occurrence of the trigger event as shown at step 400. The notice may include information about the nature of the triggering event, including the time of the event, and optionally other information such as that described above in connection with FIG. 5.), and
responsive to determining that there is a substantial change of location of the user for a significant period of time, incorporate the substantial change of location into the required change of insurance policy (Breitweiser, col. 20, lines 29 – 38 – The computer system may be configured to communicate notice to the access user that they have been identified by the insured as an access user entitled to access information upon the occurrence of a triggering event associated with the insured and/or an insurance claim, wherein the occurrence of the triggering event is determined from processor analysis of vehicle telematics data (including speed, acceleration, coming, braking, location, destination, origin, and/or route information) associated with the insured and/or received from an insured computing device, or smart or autonomous vehicle.).
Re: Claim 10, Breitweiser in view of Tsuchiyma discloses the computer system of claim 9, wherein the substantial change of location comprises at least one of:
the user relocating to a region of lower safety (Tsuchiyma, [0498] – In some embodiments, the learning database is processed by a set of machine learning and rule-based algorithms, the operations comprising determining sales price of the insurance products based on past performance; creating optimal customer relations management strategies; generating upsale and remarketing customer interactions and recommendations; generating modifications to the online enrollment interview process using sentiment analysis; analyzing enrollment data in combination with applicant online social media interactions as a means to lowering fraud costs; and reducing instances of denying coverage.),
the user relocating to a region of higher safety (Tsuchiyma, [0498] – In some embodiments, the learning database is processed by a set of machine learning and rule-based algorithms, the operations comprising determining sales price of the insurance products based on past performance; creating optimal customer relations management strategies; generating upsale and remarketing customer interactions and recommendations; generating modifications to the online enrollment interview process using sentiment analysis; analyzing enrollment data in combination with applicant online social media interactions as a means to lowering fraud costs; and reducing instances of denying coverage.), and
the user relocating to another country (Tsuchiyma, [0498] – In some embodiments, the learning database is processed by a set of machine learning and rule-based algorithms, the operations comprising determining sales price of the insurance products based on past performance; creating optimal customer relations management strategies; generating upsale and remarketing customer interactions and recommendations; generating modifications to the online enrollment interview process using sentiment analysis; analyzing enrollment data in combination with applicant online social media interactions as a means to lowering fraud costs; and reducing instances of denying coverage.),
the required change of insurance policy associated with the user relocating to the region of lower safety is to increase a coverage of the insurance policy (Tsuchiyma, [0490] – In some embodiments, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive a request to update the policy; and update the policy persisted in the computer-readable storage device based on the request to update.),
the required change of insurance policy associated with the user relocating to the region of higher safety is to decrease the coverage of the insurance policy (Tsuchiyma, [0498] – In some embodiments, the learning database is processed by a set of machine learning and rule-based algorithms, the operations comprising determining sales price of the insurance products based on past performance; creating optimal customer relations management strategies; generating up sale and remarketing customer interactions and recommendations; generating modifications to the online enrollment interview process using sentiment analysis; analyzing enrollment data in combination with applicant online social media interactions as a means to lowering fraud costs; and reducing instances of denying coverage.), and
the required change of insurance policy associated with the user relocating to another country is to change the coverage of the insurance policy or suspend the insurance policy (Tsuchiyma, [0498] – In some embodiments, the learning database is processed by a set of machine learning and rule-based algorithms, the operations comprising determining sales price of the insurance products based on past performance; creating optimal customer relations management strategies; generating upsale and remarketing customer interactions and recommendations; generating modifications to the online enrollment interview process using sentiment analysis; analyzing enrollment data in combination with applicant online social media interactions as a means to lowering fraud costs; and reducing instances of denying coverage.). The rationale for support of motivation, obviousness and reason to combine see claim 9 above.
Re: Claim 11, Breitweiser discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein:
the user information comprises activity data of the user (Breitweiser, col. 29, lines 52 – 54 – The data collected may be related to user activities and/or electronic communications, such as social media or email communications, for instance.), and
the customized code, when executed by the one or more processors of the application server, further cause the one or more processors of the application server to:
determine whether a change of the user information exceeds a predetermined threshold for an insurance policy change (Breitw