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
2. The Amendment filed on March 17, 2026 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3 and 18.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant appears to argue refined administrative processes utilizing a processor(s) to manage risk relationship document requests for a risk relationship enterprise [0001]. “Manually creating these type documents [ ] can be a time consuming and difficult task, [ ] when a substantial number of requests are received by an enterprise.” [0003]. “Systems, methods, apparatus [ ] are provided to accurately and/or automatically provide document office tools, [ ] and useful results [ ] that allows for flexibility and effectiveness when responding to those results.”
Amendments to the claims include ‘automatically determining a set of certificate holders, adjusting sets…, generating a confirmation…, generating and adjusted set…, and transmitting the document…’ These add to the previously presented elements of the claims disclosing receiving requests, retrieving information, automatically creating documents, establishing communication links, and exchanging data to support displays of the information. The existence of a practical application is still not apparent. Previous examination cited a lack of detail concerning specific enhancements that together claim an improvement to the technology. Evidence of that improvement, when applying computer processors to business methods require at least one of, documentation of AI or Machine Learning with specific aspects noted, integration of abstract ideas on a processor with an additional element performing an action and/or monitoring and control, or an improvement due to enhancements related to the software restructuring, reorganizing or modifying underlying processes that enable efficiencies to be realized as a result. In each of these cases, the specification of the invention does not disclose detail amounting to evidence of a practical application. There is a single paragraph on AI and ML at the highest level of generality, [0056], there is no claim of an additional element taking action on the information gleaned from executing abstract ideas on the processor, and software tools delivering functionality claimed to automatically update lists and distribute information improving efficiency for the time consuming and difficult tasks are not described in any level of detail that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to continue to build upon the technological improvements claimed by the invention. The amended claims continue to present what appear to be routine data processing functions that deliver speed and accuracy improvements and reduced workload when performed on a computer as compared to a human-centric manual process. Applicant’s arguments emphasized not evaluating claims at such a high level of generality that potentially meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without adequate explanation; but given the high level of generality provided in the claims, there are no meaningful technical limitations to examine.
In view of the above, the request to withdraw the rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. § 101, will be denied.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims disclose features not found in the prior art. As a result, rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 5-15, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-3, 5-15, 17-22 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of managing and maintaining risk relationship documents for an enterprise such as an insurer.
Claim 13 discloses a method, comprising: An enterprise risk relationship document method of an enterprise, comprising:
receiving, a risk relationship document request associated with a particular risk relationship identifier; (economic principles or practices, calculating costs, hedging insurance, mitigating risk; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people, following rules or instructions; mental processes, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
responsive to the risk relationship document request, retrieving information from a risk relationship data store, wherein the risk relationship data store contains records associated with a plurality of risk relationships between the enterprise and parties, and, for each risk relationship, a risk relationship identifier, a party identifier, a communication address, and at least one risk relationship parameter; (economic principles or practices, calculating costs, hedging insurance, mitigating risk; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people, following rules or instructions; mental processes, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
based on the retrieved information, creating a risk relationship document
associated with all of: (i) proof of insurance, (ii) a Certificate Of Insurance ("COI"), (iii) an Evidence Of Property ("EOP"), (iv) a Statement Of Insurance ("SOI"), and (v) a state-specific document; (economic principles or practices, calculating costs, hedging insurance, mitigating risk; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people, following rules or instructions; mental processes, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining a set of certificate holders;
adjusting the determined set of certificate holders by removing at least one certificate holder from the determined set of certificate holders;
to confirm removal of the at least one certificate holder;
generating an adjusted set of certificate holders;
sending the risk relationship document to each certificate holder in the adjusted set of certificate holders; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people, following rules or instructions; mental processes, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
establishing communication about the risk relationship document to the communication address associated with the particular risk relationship identifier, reducing unnecessary messages; and
exchanging data to support information about the risk relationship document, (economic principles or practices, calculating costs, hedging insurance, mitigating risk; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people, following rules or instructions; mental processes, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to provide communication via at least one of seven methods (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people, following rules or instructions; mental processes, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 14), wherein the enterprise is an insurer, the risk relationships are associated with insurance policies, and the parties are associated with insureds, (economic principles or practices, calculating costs, hedging insurance, mitigating risk; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people, following rules or instructions; applying mental processes, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 15), wherein a plurality of risk relationship documents of different types are created and transmitted, (economic principles or practices, calculating costs, hedging insurance, mitigating risk; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people, following rules or instructions; applying mental processes, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 17).
Each of these claimed limitations employ organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic principles and practices based on mitigating risk or calculating costs, hedging insurance, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people, following rules or instructions, or performing mental processes including, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 18-22 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 13-15, 17.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a back-end application computer server of an enterprise, a computer processor of the back-end application computer server, a risk relationship data store, encrypted electronic records, automatically creating a risk relationship document, automatically determining a set of certificate holders, generating a pop-up window, transmitting the risk relationship document, automatically establishing a communication link, and exchanging data with a remote device via security features and a distributed communication network to support interactive user interface displays, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 13, and 18, are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent
claims 2-3, 5-12 and 14-15, 17, and 19-22 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, 13, and 18.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Faherty, (US 20180165767 A1),
“Systems and Method Using Threshold Priority Values for a Risk Relationship Management Platform,” in view of Fohr, (US20220405852 A1), “System and Method for Tracking Proof of Insurance and Insurance Compliance.”
Regarding Claim 13, Faherty teaches, An enterprise risk relationship document method implemented via a back-end application computer server of an enterprise, comprising: receiving, at a computer processor of the back-end application computer server, a risk relationship document request associated with a particular risk relationship identifier; (A system to automatically facilitate processing of risk relation relationships for an enterprise, [Claim 1], a communication device associated with a back-end application computer server exchanges information with remote devices. The information may be exchanged, for example, via public and/or proprietary communication networks, [0005], (information may be “received” by or “transmitted” to, for example: (i) the back-end application computer server 1800 from another device; or (ii) a software application or module within the back-end application computer server 1800 from another software application, module, or any other source, [0061], A risk relationship computer store may contain electronic data records each representing a risk relationship, with each electronic data record including a relationship identifier [Abstract],
Faherty continues, responsive to the risk relationship document request, retrieving information from a risk relationship data store, wherein the risk relationship data store contains electronic records associated with a plurality of risk relationships between the enterprise and parties, and, for each risk relationship, a risk relationship identifier, a party identifier, a communication address, and at least one risk relationship parameter, (The risk relationship management platform 150 may also exchange information with remote assignment management terminals a back-end application computer server 152 of the risk relationship management platform 150 may facilitate management, assignment, and viewing of information, [0027]),
Faherty does not teach, but Fohr teaches wherein the risk relationship data store contains encrypted electronic records associated with a plurality of risk relationships based on the retrieved information, automatically creating a risk relationship document associated with all of: (i) proof of insurance, (ii) a Certificate Of Insurance ("COI"), (iii) an Evidence Of Property ("EOP"), (iv) a Statement Of Insurance ("SOI"), and (v) a state-specific document; (flexible storage architecture so that users can leverage both distributed ledger technology as well as more traditional storage methods to provide real time secure storage and retrieval of certificate of insurance information, [Abstract], a real-time environment where the COI information is updated as the insurance status changes, [0037], a method for facilitating the dissemination, monitoring, and validation of Certificates of Insurance (COI) and/or proof of insurance, [0029], a Certificate of Insurance (COI) is a document used to provide evidence of specific insurance coverage. [0004], the (COI) certificate provides evidence of the insurance and usually contains information on the types and limits of coverage, insurance company, policy number, named insured, and the policies' effective periods. Although the certificate should not be substituted for the information contained in the actual insurance policies, it is usually a reliable source of information or proof of insurance coverage, [0004], and handling a multitude of IRS and government forms; typical IRS documentation includes W9, TIN (tax id forms) as well as state, county, city, legal forms, and licenses, [0111]),
However, neither Faherty or Fohr teach,
automatically determining a set of certificate holders;
adjusting the determined set of certificate holders by removing at least one certificate holder from the determined set of certificate holders;
generating a pop-up window to confirm removal of the at least one certificate holder;
generating an adjusted set of certificate holders;
transmitting the risk relationship document to each certificate holder in the adjusted set of certificate holders.
Claims 1 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 13, therefore claims 1 and 18 are not rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation as claim 13.
None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-12 and 14-15, 17, and 19-22 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, 13 and 18.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights