Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
2. The Preliminary Amendment filed May 14, 2024 has been entered. Claim 1 is newly cancelled. Claims 2-21 are newly added. Claims 2-21 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
3. The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation, “wherein the corresponding effective dates comprise a master effective data that is applicable across the plurality of policy elements.” It appears that the applicant intended to state, “wherein the corresponding effective dates comprise a master effective date that is applicable across the plurality of policy elements.”
Appropriate correction is requested.
Double Patenting
4. 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.
5. Claims 2, 8-12, and 14-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 10, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11900472. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. A mapping between the limitations of these claims is provided below.
Instant Application
Issued Patent
2. A system, comprising:
an end-user interface configured to facilitate revisioning of insurance policies;
a memory configured to store a first version of an insurance policy that comprises a current version of the insurance policy, wherein the first version of the insurance policy is associated with a corresponding creation date, and
wherein the first version of the insurance policy comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to:
in preparation to review the first version of the insurance policy, recall, from the memory, the first version of the insurance policy;
generate, using the first version of the insurance policy recalled from the memory, an editable version comprising a copy of the first version of the insurance policy,
wherein corresponding elements of the insurance policy in the first version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers;
provide a revised version at least in part by revising the editable version using input received via the end-user interface;
store, in the memory, the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date; and
retain the first version of the insurance policy in the memory notwithstanding that the first version of the insurance policy is no longer presently legally effective.
8. The system of claim 2, wherein the first version of the insurance policy is stored in the memory in a read-only format.
9. The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to track insurance policy versions.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the tracking comprises assigning model numbers to the first version of the insurance policy and the now-current version of the insurance policy.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the assigned model numbers indicate a relative order of the first version and the now-current version of the insurance policy.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein a model number assigned to the now-current version of the insurance policy is determined at least in part by incrementing a model number assigned to the first version of the insurance policy.
14. The system of claim 12, wherein the now-current version of the insurance policy supersedes the first version of the insurance policy.
15. The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compress previous versions of the insurance policy.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the compressing comprises: storing the now-current version of the insurance policy in its entirety; and storing each prior version at least in part by recording differences between a given previous version and an immediately subsequent version.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the immediately subsequent version is immediately subsequent by model number.
18. The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to reconstruct a prior version of the insurance policy.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein reconstructing the prior version of the insurance policy comprises successively applying changes from a subsequent version.
20. A method, comprising:
in preparation to review a first version of an insurance policy, recalling, from a memory, the first version of the insurance policy, wherein the first version of the insurance policy stored in the memory comprises a current version of the insurance policy,
wherein the first version of the insurance policy is associated with a corresponding creation date, and
wherein the first version of the insurance policy comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers;
generating, using the first version of the insurance policy recalled from the memory, an editable version comprising a copy of the first version of the insurance policy,
wherein corresponding elements of the insurance policy in the first version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers;
providing a revised version at least in part by revising the editable version using input received via an end-user interface that facilitates revisioning of insurance policies;
storing, in the memory, the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date; and
retaining the first version of the insurance policy in the memory notwithstanding that the first version of the insurance policy is no longer presently legally effective.
21. A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:
in preparation to review a first version of an insurance policy, recalling, from a memory, the first version of the insurance policy, wherein the first version of the insurance policy stored in the memory comprises a current version of the insurance policy,
wherein the first version of the insurance policy is associated with a corresponding creation date, and
wherein the first version of the insurance policy comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers;
generating, using the first version of the insurance policy recalled from the memory, an editable version comprising a copy of the first version of the insurance policy,
wherein corresponding elements of the insurance policy in the first version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers;
providing a revised version at least in part by revising the editable version using input received via an end-user interface that facilitates revisioning of insurance policies;
storing, in the memory, the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date; and
retaining the first version of the insurance policy in the memory notwithstanding that the first version of the insurance policy is no longer presently legally effective.
(claim 1) A system, comprising:
(claim 1) use input as entered by the end user via an end-user interface to revise the editable version to provide a revised version
(claim 1) wherein the current version has a corresponding creation date stored therewith in the memory
(claim 1) wherein the current version has a corresponding creation date stored therewith in the memory
(claim 1) A system, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to:
(claim 1) in preparation to revise the current version of the insurance policy, recall from the memory the current version of the insurance policy
(claim 1) use the current version of the insurance policy to generate an editable version comprising a duplicate of the current version of the insurance policy
(claim 1) wherein corresponding policy elements of the insurance policy in the current version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers
(claim 1) use input as entered by the end user via an end-user interface to revise the editable version to provide a revised version
(claim 1) use the memory to store the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date
(claim 1) use the memory to store the current version as a now-previous version of the insurance policy that is no longer presently legally effective
(claim 5) wherein the versions of the insurance policy as stored in the memory and having a corresponding effective date comprise read-only files.
(claim 1) wherein storing the current version as the now-previous version includes: assigning the now-current version of the insurance policy a version model number. Examiner’s Note: The issued patent does not explicitly recite the work “track.” However, the issued patent does state that the system assigns model numbers to the policy versions. This is a component of tracking the policy revisions as explained in claim 10 of the instant application. Therefore, the process of assigning model numbers to the policy versions constitutes “tracking” the policy versions
(claim 1) wherein storing the current version as the now-previous version includes: assigning the now-current version of the insurance policy a version model number that is immediately subsequent to a version model number of the now-previous version of the insurance policy
(claim 1) wherein storing the current version as the now-previous version includes: assigning the now-current version of the insurance policy a version model number that is immediately subsequent to a version model number of the now-previous version of the insurance policy
(claim 1) … at least in part by incrementing the now-previous version of the insurance policy's version model number
(claim 1) wherein the now-current version of the insurance policy supersedes the now-previous version of the insurance policy
(claim 1) compressing the now-previous version of the insurance policy
(claim 1) compressing the now-previous version of the insurance policy at least in part by recording differences between the now-previous version of the insurance policy and the now-current version of the insurance policy that is the immediately subsequent version by model number
(claim 1) assigning the now-current version of the insurance policy a version model number that is immediately subsequent to a version model number of the now-previous version of the insurance policy
(claim 1) reconstructing the now-previous version of the insurance policy
(claim 1) reconstructing the now-previous version of the insurance policy at least in part by successively applying the recorded differences from the now-current version of the insurance policy
(claim 10) A method, comprising:
in preparation to revise the current version of the insurance policy, recalling from the memory the current version of the insurance policy
(claim 10) wherein the current version has a corresponding creation date stored therewith in a memory
(claim 10) wherein the current version comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers
(claim 10) generate an editable version comprising a duplicate of the current version of the insurance policy
(claim 10) wherein corresponding policy elements of the insurance policy in the current version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers
(claim 10) sing input as entered by the end user via an end-user interface to revise the editable version to provide a revised version
(claim 10) using the memory to store the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date
(claim 10) using the memory to store the current version as a now-previous version of the insurance policy that is no longer presently legally effective
(claim 19) A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and comprising computer instructions for:
(claim 19) in preparation to revise the current version of the insurance policy, recalling from the memory the current version of the insurance policy
(claim 19) wherein the current version has a corresponding creation date stored therewith in a memory
(claim 19) wherein the current version comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers
(claim 19) generate an editable version comprising a duplicate of the current version of the insurance policy
(claim 19) wherein corresponding policy elements of the insurance policy in the current version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers
(claim 19) using input as entered by the end user via an end-user interface to revise the editable version to provide a revised version
(claim 19) using the memory to store the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date
(claim 19) sing the memory to store the current version as a now-previous version of the insurance policy that is no longer presently legally effective
Therefore, because claims 1, 5, 10, and 19 of the issued patent teach each limitation of claims 2, 8-12, and 14-21 of the instant application, claims 2, 8-12, and 14-21 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 5, 10, and 19 of the issued patent.
6. Claims 3-7 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11900472 in view of Heydon (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20070255601). A mapping between the limitations of these claims is provided below.
Instant Application
Heydon
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the corresponding effective dates comprise a master effective data that is applicable across the plurality of policy elements.
4. The system of claim 2, wherein different policy elements are associated with different corresponding effective dates.
5. The system of claim 2, wherein a policy element comprises a start effective date and an end effective date, wherein the start effective date and the end effective date indicate a date range over which the policy element is effective.
6. The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to detect conflicts based at least in part on the fixed identifiers.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein detecting a conflict comprises comparing differences between two policy versions at least in part by matching up changes to elements with a same fixed identifier.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the model number assigned to the now-current version of the insurance policy comprises a latest or highest version model number, and wherein in a subsequent revision, the now-current version of the insurance policy is recalled based on being associated with the latest or highest version model number.
The issued patent does not explicitly teach this limitation. However, this limitation is taught by Heydon (See at least Paragraph 31: Describes a system for insurance policy revisioning. The insurance policy may comprise an effective date corresponding to the submission of the newly created policy [i.e., a master effective date]. In other words, the initial effective date of the newly created policy applies to all subsequent revisions to the policy). Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of the issued patent and the teachings of Heydon in order to improve existing systems for recording and analyzing changes to insurance policies based on the varying effective dates of each change (Heydon: Paragraphs 2-6).
The issued patent does not explicitly teach this limitation. However, this limitation is taught by Heydon (See at least Paragraph 33: The policy elements may be associated with effective dates for the changes they represent). Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of the issued patent and the teachings of Heydon in order to improve existing systems for recording and analyzing changes to insurance policies based on the varying effective dates of each change (Heydon: Paragraphs 2-6).
The issued patent does not explicitly teach this limitation. However, this limitation is taught by Heydon (See at least Paragraph 30: Each revision may be effective between a range of dates. For example, the revision may be effective starting at the revision effective date and end at the policy period expiration date). Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of the issued patent and the teachings of Heydon in order to improve existing systems for recording and analyzing changes to insurance policies based on the varying effective dates of each change (Heydon: Paragraphs 2-6).
The issued patent does not explicitly teach this limitation. However, this limitation is taught by Heydon (See at least Paragraphs 43 and 44: The system may detect "merge conflicts" which occur if the same field was changed to two different values in two different revisions. Conflicts are determined based on changes to elements with the same RIID [i.e., fixed identifiers]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of the issued patent and the teachings of Heydon in order to improve existing systems for recording and analyzing changes to insurance policies (Heydon: Paragraphs 2-6).
The issued patent does not explicitly teach this limitation. However, this limitation is taught by Heydon (See at least Paragraph 44: Merge conflicts are detected by comparing the differences to the changes that were made to produce the bound revision with the later effective date. Any merge conflicts are detected by comparing the differences to the differences collected by matching up changes to elements with the same RIID). Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of the issued patent and the teachings of Heydon in order to improve existing systems for recording and analyzing changes to insurance policies (Heydon: Paragraphs 2-6).
The issued patent does not explicitly teach this limitation. However, this limitation is taught by Heydon (See at least Paragraphs 31-33: Each policy revision may be assigned a label [i.e., a model number] based on when the revision was created. For example, A represents a submission of a newly created policy, and B, C, and D represent policy changes [Also See Figure 4]. The most recent revision is assigned a letter that is "highest." For example, the most recent version in a series of four revisions to a policy is assigned the letter "D." When a new policy data revision is created, the user specifies an effective date for the change. This effective date is used to look up the temporally most recent legally binding revision as of that effective date as described above. This legally binding revision is used as the basis for the new revision. In other words, the most recent revision [e.g., the revision labeled "D" in the example provided above] is recalled based on having the "highest" label value when generating new revisions). Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of the issued patent and the teachings of Heydon in order to improve existing systems for recording and analyzing changes to insurance policies based on the varying effective dates of each change (Heydon: Paragraphs 2-6).
Therefore, because claim 1 the issued patent, in view of Heydon, teach each limitation of claims 3-7 and 13 of the instant application, claims 3-7 and 13 of the instant application are obvious over claim 1 of the issued patent in view of Heydon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and does not include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 and October 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Step 1
9. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claim 20), a machine (claims 2-19) and a manufacture (claim 21). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
10. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea of:
[[one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to]]: in preparation to review the first version of the insurance policy, recall, [[from the memory]], the first version of the insurance policy;
generate, using the first version of the insurance policy recalled [[from the memory]], an editable version comprising a copy of the first version of the insurance policy,
wherein corresponding elements of the insurance policy in the first version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers; and
provide a revised version at least in part by revising the editable version using input received via [[the end-user interface]].
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial interactions (e.g., insurance – here, managing insurance policy documents).
Step 2A, Prong 2
11. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which claim 2 is directed does not include limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the limitations of claim 2 also recite generic computer components (e.g., a system comprising: an end-user interface, a memory, and one or more processors). In particular, the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In other words, the additional elements are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 2 also recites the following limitation:
a memory configured to store a first version of an insurance policy that comprises a current version of the insurance policy, wherein the first version of the insurance policy is associated with a corresponding creation date, and wherein the first version of the insurance policy comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers;
store, in the memory, the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date; and
retain the first version of the insurance policy in the memory notwithstanding that the first version of the insurance policy is no longer presently legally effective.
These limitations merely state that the system comprises a memory which stores versions of the insurance policy and various information associated with the versions of the policy. However, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the data is stored. Rather, the claims simply state that the information is stored/retained in the memory. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(d): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363).
Thus, claim 2 does not include any limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
12. Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 2 are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the recited additional elements (e.g., a system comprising: an end-user interface, a memory, and one or more processors), do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality such that they are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)); (See also applicant’s Specification at least Paragraphs 39-43).
Additionally, the following limitation identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (merely storing data) has been reevaluated under Step 2B:
a memory configured to store a first version of an insurance policy that comprises a current version of the insurance policy, wherein the first version of the insurance policy is associated with a corresponding creation date, and wherein the first version of the insurance policy comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers;
store, in the memory, the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date; and
retain the first version of the insurance policy in the memory notwithstanding that the first version of the insurance policy is no longer presently legally effective.
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely storing data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363).
Thus, claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
13. Independent claims 20 and 21 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claim 20 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 2. However, the primary difference between claims 20 and 2 is that claim 20 is drafted as a method rather than as a system. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 2, claim 20 recites generic computer components (e.g., a memory and an end-user interface) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 2 and 20, claim 20 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Claim 21 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 2. However, the primary difference between claims 21 and 2 is that claim 21 is drafted as a computer-readable medium rather than as a system. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 2, claim 21 recites generic computer components (e.g., a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, a memory, and an end-user interface) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 14, claim 14 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Dependent Claims
14. Dependent claims 3-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claims 3-5 simply provide further definition to the “policy elements” recited in claim 1. Simply stating that the policy elements are associated with various effective dates does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines parameters that govern when the policy elements are effective.
Claims 6 and 7 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., detecting conflicts between policy versions by matching up changes to policy elements with a fixed identifier) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claim 8 simply provides further definition to the process of storing insurance policy recited in claim 1. Simply stating that the policy is stored in a read-only format does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the format in which the insurance policy is stored.
Claims 10-13 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., tracking the insurance policy revisions by assigning model numbers to each of the policy revisions) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, as described above regarding claim 1. Additionally, the examiner notes that merely describing how the model numbers are assigned to the policy revisions does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines a set of instructions for assigning the model numbers.
Claim 14 simply provide further definition to the “now-current version of the insurance policy” recited in claim 1. Simply stating that the now-current version of the insurance policy supersedes the previous versions does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the priority of the different versions of the insurance policy.
Claims 15 and 16 simply state that the system “compresses” the previous versions of the insurance policy by storing the now-current version of the policy in its entirety, and storing each prior version at least in part by recording differences between a given previous version and an immediately subsequent version. However, these limitations do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the previous versions are compressed. Simply stating that compressing the previous versions includes recording the differences between immediately subsequent versions does not amount to a technical improvement in data storage and management. Rather, this amount to no more than merely storing data associated with the various versions of the insurance policy. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(d): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363). In view of the requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely storing data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363).
Claim 17 simply provides further definition to the “immediately subsequent version of the insurance policy” recited in claim 16. Simply stating that the immediately subsequent version is immediately subsequent by model number does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines how the model numbers relate to the various versions of the insurance policy.
Claims 18 and 19 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., reconstructing the insurance policy by applying changes from subsequent versions of the insurance policy) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, as described above regarding claim 1.
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
16. Claims 2-7, 9, and 15-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Heydon (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20070255601).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Heydon teaches:
A system, comprising: an end-user interface configured to facilitate revisioning of insurance policies (See at least Paragraphs 68 and 69: Describes a system for insurance policy revisioning. The system comprises a user interface for receiving instructions from the user);
a memory configured to store a first version of an insurance policy that comprises a current version of the insurance policy, wherein the first version of the insurance policy is associated with a corresponding creation date (See at least Paragraphs 26 and 68: The system may comprise a first memory that stores data that defines an insurance policy as a plurality of discrete temporally-sequential policy data revisions. The creation of the policy may be associated with a “submission data” [i.e., a creation data; See Paragraph 31 and Figure 4]), and
wherein the first version of the insurance policy comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers (See at least Paragraph 39: The policy may be associated with a plurality of “policy revisions” comprising a plurality of “policy revision elements” each having a corresponding RIID [i.e., fixed identifier]. The policy revisions associated with the policy revisions may have an associated effective date range [See Paragraph 36]); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to: in preparation to review the first version of the insurance policy, recall, from the memory, the first version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 33: When a policy data revision is created, the system looks up a most recent legally binding revision as of the effective date of the of the policy. Each revision is stored within the memory [See Paragraph 68]);
generate, using the first version of the insurance policy recalled from the memory, an editable version comprising a copy of the first version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 33: The draft new revision [i.e., an editable version of the policy] is initialized to be a copy of the most temporally recent legally binding revision [i.e., the first version of the policy]),
wherein corresponding elements of the insurance policy in the first version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers (See at least Paragraph 39: Each unique RIID assigned to the policy revision elements remains the same across revisions of the same policy);
provide a revised version at least in part by revising the editable version using input received via the end-user interface (See at least Paragraphs 33 and 34: The system may create a new revision based on changes made to the most temporally recent legally binding revision [Also See Paragraph 24]. A user interface may be used to receive instructions from the user [See Paragraph 69]);
store, in the memory, the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date (See at least Paragraph 61: Each policy data revision is stored with a corresponding change data [i.e., creation date] and a corresponding legally effective date [i.e., effective date]. The change dates and the legally effective dates can then be used to facilitate determination of a present liability. In other words, the dates associated with the revisions may be used to determine the “now-current” version of the insurance policy); and
retain the first version of the insurance policy in the memory notwithstanding that the first version of the insurance policy is no longer presently legally effective (See at least Paragraphs 62 and 68: Each revision is stored in the memory regardless of whether that revision is currently effective. As stated in Paragraph 62, the user may view the effective policy at any prior date).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Heydon teaches:
wherein the corresponding effective dates comprise a master effective data that is applicable across the plurality of policy elements (See at least Paragraph 31: The insurance policy may comprise an effective date corresponding to the submission of the newly created policy [i.e., a master effective date]. In other words, the initial effective date of the newly created policy applies to all subsequent revisions to the policy).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Heydon teaches:
wherein different policy elements are associated with different corresponding effective dates (See at least Paragraph 33: The policy elements may be associated with effective dates for the changes they represent).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Heydon teaches:
wherein a policy element comprises a start effective date and an end effective date, wherein the start effective date and the end effective date indicate a date range over which the policy element is effective (See at least Paragraph 30: Each revision may be effective between a range of dates. For example, the revision may be effective starting at the revision effective date and end at the policy period expiration date).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Heydon teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to detect conflicts based at least in part on the fixed identifiers (See at least Paragraphs 43 and 44: The system may detect “merge conflicts” which occur if the same field was changed to two different values in two different revisions. Conflicts are determined based on changes to elements with the same RIID [i.e., fixed identifiers]).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Heydon teaches:
wherein detecting a conflict comprises comparing differences between two policy versions at least in part by matching up changes to elements with a same fixed identifier (See at least Paragraph 44: Merge conflicts are detected by comparing the differences to the changes that were made to produce the bound revision with the later effective date. Any merge conflicts are detected by comparing the differences to the differences collected by matching up changes to elements with the same RIID).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Heydon teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to track insurance policy versions (See at least Paragraph 25: The system allows insurance providers to readily track insurance policy revisions [i.e., versions] and accurately process claims based on the effective dates and change dates of the revisions).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Heydon teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compress previous versions of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraphs 58 and 59: The system may store each revision in terms of the changes [i.e., delta] made in each revision. These changes may be stored and represented in a table, as showed in Figure 11. Examiner’s Note: The process of “compressing” previous versions of the policy is described in Paragraph 50 of the applicant’s specification. This portion of the specification states that the process of compre“sion the ve”sions of the policy may include recording only the differences between that prior version and the immediately subsequent version by model number. Therefore, this limitation has been interpreted based on this example provided in the specification).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Heydon teaches:
wherein the compressing comprises: storing the now-current version of the insurance policy in its entirety (See at least Paragraph 68: The system stores each insurance policy as a plurality of discrete temporally-sequential policy data revisions, wherein each revision incorporates information from temporally prior revisions covering an effective date range of the revision. In other words, the system stores, within the computer memory, a version of the insurance policy that incorporates each revision made to the policy [i.e., the current policy in its entirety]); and
storing each prior version at least in part by recording differences between a given previous version and an immediately subsequent version (See at least Paragraphs 58 and 59: The system may store each revision in terms of the changes [i.e., delta] made in each revision [Also See Figure 11]).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, Heydon teaches:
wherein the immediately subsequent version is immediately subsequent by model number (See at least Paragraph 31: The label for the revision is based on when the revision was created. For example, A represents a submission of a newly created policy, and B, C, and D represent policy changes [Also See Figure 4]. In other words, the revision labelled “B” is immediately subsequent to the revision labeled “C”).
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, Heydon teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to reconstruct a prior version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraphs 61 and 62: Querying in terms of the change date allows a user to ask what versions existed when looking at the history of the policy from some earlier date. Therefore, a carrier can determine what an insurance policy looked like on an effective date X based on the history at an earlier date Y. In other words, the prior version of the model can be “reconstructed” based on the31ffecttive terms at an earlier date).
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, Heydon teaches:
wherein reconstructing the prior version of the insurance policy comprises successively applying changes from a subsequent version (See at least Paragraphs 61 and 62: Querying in terms of the change date allows a user to ask what versions existed when looking at the history of the policy from some earlier date. Therefore, a carrier can determine what an insurance policy looked like on an effective date X based on the history at an earlier date Y. In other words, the prior version of the model can be “reconstructed” by applying changes from each subsequent revision of the policy).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, Heydon teaches:
A method, comprising: in preparation to review a first version of an insurance policy, recalling, from a memory, the first version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 33: Describes a system for insurance policy revisioning. When a policy data revision is created, the system looks up a most recent legally binding revision as of the effective date of the of the policy. Each revision is stored within the memory [See Paragraph 68]),
wherein the first version of the insurance policy stored in the memory comprises a current version of the insurance policy, wherein the first version of the insurance policy is associated with a corresponding creation date (See at least Paragraphs 26 and 68: The system may comprise a first memory that stores data that defines an insurance policy as a plurality of discrete temporally-sequential policy data revisions. The creation of the policy may be associated with a “submission data” [i.e., a creation data; See Paragraph 31 and Figure 4]), and
wherein the first version of the insurance policy comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers (See at least Paragraph 39: The policy may be associated with a plurality of “policy revisions” comprising a plurality of “policy revision elements” each having a corresponding RIID [i.e., fixed identifier]. The policy revisions associated with the policy revisions may have an associated effective date range [See Paragraph 36]);
generating, using the first version of the insurance policy recalled from the memory, an editable version comprising a copy of the first version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 33: The draft new revision [i.e., an editable version of the policy] is initialized to be a copy of the most temporally recent legally binding revision [i.e., the first version of the policy]),
wherein corresponding elements of the insurance policy in the first version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers (See at least Paragraph 39: Each unique RIID assigned to the policy revision elements remains the same across revisions of the same policy);
providing a revised version at least in part by revising the editable version using input received via an end-user interface that facilitates revisioning of insurance policies (See at least Paragraphs 33 and 34: The system may create a new revision based on changes made to the most temporally recent legally binding revision [Also See Paragraph 24]. A user interface may be used to receive instructions from the user [See Paragraph 69]);
storing, in the memory, the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date (See at least Paragraph 61: Each policy data revision is stored with a corresponding change data [i.e., creation date] and a corresponding legally effective date [i.e., effective date]. The change dates and the legally effective dates can then be used to facilitate determination of a present liability. In other words, the dates associated with the revisions may be used to determine the “now-current” version of the insurance policy); and
retaining the first version of the insurance policy in the memory notwithstanding that the first version of the insurance policy is no longer presently legally effective (See at least Paragraphs 62 and 68: Each revision is stored in the memory regardless of whether that revision is currently effective. As stated in Paragraph 62, the user may view the effective policy at any prior date).
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, Heydon teaches:
A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for (See at least Paragraph 68: Describes a system for insurance policy revisioning. The system comprises a second computer memory storing programmed instructions):
in preparation to review a first version of an insurance policy, recalling, from a memory, the first version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 33: When a policy data revision is created, the system looks up a most recent legally binding revision as of the effective date of the of the policy. Each revision is stored within the memory [See Paragraph 68]),
wherein the first version of the insurance policy stored in the memory comprises a current version of the insurance policy, wherein the first version of the insurance policy is associated with a corresponding creation date (See at least Paragraphs 26 and 68: The system may comprise a first memory that stores data that defines an insurance policy as a plurality of discrete temporally-sequential policy data revisions. The creation of the policy may be associated with a “submission data” [i.e., a creation data; See Paragraph 31 and Figure 4]), and
wherein the first version of the insurance policy comprises a plurality of policy elements each having corresponding effective dates and fixed identifiers (See at least Paragraph 39: The policy may be associated with a plurality of “policy revisions” comprising a plurality of “policy revision elements” each having a corresponding RIID [i.e., fixed identifier]. The policy revisions associated with the policy revisions may have an associated effective date range [See Paragraph 36]);
generating, using the first version of the insurance policy recalled from the memory, an editable version comprising a copy of the first version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 33: The draft new revision [i.e., an editable version of the policy] is initialized to be a copy of the most temporally recent legally binding revision [i.e., the first version of the policy]),
wherein corresponding elements of the insurance policy in the first version and in the editable version have identical corresponding fixed identifiers (See at least Paragraph 39: Each unique RIID assigned to the policy revision elements remains the same across revisions of the same policy);
providing a revised version at least in part by revising the editable version using input received via an end-user interface that facilitates revisioning of insurance policies (See at least Paragraphs 33 and 34: The system may create a new revision based on changes made to the most temporally recent legally binding revision [Also See Paragraph 24]. A user interface may be used to receive instructions from the user [See Paragraph 69]);
storing, in the memory, the revised version as a now-current version of the insurance policy along with a corresponding creation date and at least one new corresponding effective date (See at least Paragraph 61: Each policy data revision is stored with a corresponding change data [i.e., creation date] and a corresponding legally effective date [i.e., effective date]. The change dates and the legally effective dates can then be used to facilitate determination of a present liability. In other words, the dates associated with the revisions may be used to determine the “now-current” version of the insurance policy); and
retaining the first version of the insurance policy in the memory notwithstanding that the first version of the insurance policy is no longer presently legally effective (See at least Paragraphs 62 and 68: Each revision is stored in the memory regardless of whether that revision is currently effective. As stated in Paragraph 62, the user may view the effective policy at any prior date).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
17. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
18. Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heydon (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20070255601) in view of Barrett (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20080154646).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Heydon does not explicitly teach, but Walker, however, does teach:
wherein the first version of the insurance policy is stored in the memory in a read-only format (See at least Paragraph 26: Describes a system for storing information related to a patient, such as insurance billing information. The patient information may be stored in a read-only format).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the teachings of Heydon and Barrett in order to ensures data integrity and accuracy of the information in the system (Barrett: Paragraph 26).
19. Claims 10-14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heydon (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20070255601) in view of Cardot (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20090210258).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Heydon teaches:
wherein the tracking comprises assigning model [[numbers]] to the first version of the insurance policy and the now-current version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 31: Each policy revision may be assigned a label [i.e., a model number] based on when the revision was created. For example, A represents a submission of a newly created policy, and B, C, and D represent policy changes [Also See Figure 4]. Examiner’s note: Heydon does not explicitly state that the label is a “number.” Rather, Heydon utilizes letters to label each revision. However, this limitation is disclosed by Cardot as described below).
Regarding claim 10, Heydon does not explicitly teach, but Cardot, however, does teach:
wherein the tracking comprises assigning model numbers to the first version of the insurance policy and the now-current version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 98: Describes a system for managing insurance policies. The policy may be associated with a “revision number” which is a component to identify revisions of the policy [Also See Paragraph 120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the teachings of Heydon and Cardot in order to uniquely identify a particular policy and its components, such as expiration dates (Cardot: Paragraphs 98 and 104).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Heydon teaches:
wherein the assigned model numbers indicate a relative order of the first version and the now-current version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 31: The label for the revision is based on when the revision was created [i.e., a relative order in which they are created]. For example, A represents a submission of a newly created policy, and B, C, and D represent policy changes [Also See Figure 4]).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Heydon teaches:
wherein a model number assigned to the now-current version of the insurance policy is determined at least in part by incrementing a model number assigned to the first version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 31: The label for the revision is based on when the revision was created. For example, A represents a submission of a newly created policy, and B, C, and D represent policy changes [Also See Figure 4]. In other words, the label is “incremented” by one letter for each revision).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Heydon teaches:
wherein the model number assigned to the now-current version of the insurance policy comprises a latest or highest version model number, and wherein in a subsequent revision, the now-current version of the insurance policy is recalled based on being associated with the latest or highest version model number (See at least Paragraphs 31-33: The most recent revision is assigned a letter that is “highest.” For example, the most recent version in a series of four revisions to a policy is assigned the letter “D.” When a new policy data revision is created, the user specifies an effective date for the change. This effective date is used to look up the temporally most recent legally binding revision as of that effective date as described above. This legally binding revision is used as the basis for the new revision. In other words, the most recent revision [e.g., the revision labeled “D” in the example provided above] is recalled based on having the “highest” label value when generating new revisions).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Heydon teaches:
wherein the now-current version of the insurance policy supersedes the first version of the insurance policy (See at least Paragraph 41: The system may merge the differences between the base revision and new revisions. In other words, the terms of the new revision may supersede the terms of the prior/first version).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Walker (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20050101376): Describes a system for establishing insurance policies. The system may comprise a read-only memory for storing data related to one or more insurance policies or one or more terms of an insurance policy.
Houle (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20030204421): Describes a system and method that includes an integrated insurance system for automating information processing and computerizes different combinations of the quoting, enrollment, billing, monitoring and maintenance functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights