DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to an Amendment dated February 26, 2026. Claims 17 and 13 are canceled. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 15 and 18 are amended. Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14-18. All pending claims are examined.
Response to Arguments
Art Rejection and 101 Rejection Analysis
Art Rejection
Based on the amendments to the claims the art rejection is withdrawn and arguments are moot.
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“ In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Step 1: The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 18, which is illustrative of the independent claim 1 recites:
A method, implemented by an open, digital data driven underwriting and loss event simulation system comprising an automated digital processing core for risk-transfer assessment based on risk measurements providing measures for
potential damages or losses related to a future occurrence of a defined loss event causing a physical impact or loss to an event-exposed structure, object or individual, wherein the automated digital processing core comprises a processing entity with a data interface for receiving input data of physical measurement values quantifying a risk parameter captured by measuring devices and a risk-transfer analyzing structure for processing the input data and allocating one or more risk-measure scores quantifying the potential damage or loss, and an output signal generator providing the one or more risk-measure scores as an output signal of the automated digital processing core, the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a host environment for a plurality of external system modules, the a plurality of external system modules providing input data over the data interface and being allocated as data processing part to the risk-transfer analyzing structure,
providing, by an electronic connector, access for the external system modules to the processing entity of the automated digital processing core via [[the]] a network infrastructure, wherein the open system architecture comprises at least one digital architecture section having open source code accessible for the external system modules, and wherein the external system modules are dock on to the automated digital processing core via the open source code by providing their input data and input data processing modules to the digital system platform, and the external system modules are integrated into the risk-transfer analyzing structure as processing entity via the network infrastructure,
providing, by a security monitor comprising one or more filters arranged between the digital processing core and the one or more external system modules, settable security parameters defining technical characteristic parameter values for the one or more external system modules for accepting or blocking an access of the one or more external system modules to the digital processing core,
an input data processing structure providing, by the one or more external system modules, an input data processing structure including a measurement value comparison structure comparing values of the automated digital system and the one or more external system modules, a data standardizing structure, a measurement value weighing structure, data validation structure for repeated application of the one or more filter means to the one or more external system modules initiating a security check, in predefined time intervals, by applying the one or more filter means to the one or more external system modules in the system module library, a machine learning structure, which is integrable to the risk-transfer analyzing structure via a synchronization segment ensuring the process flow between the one or more external system modules and the risk-transfer analysis structure of the automated digital system,
providing, by the security monitor including the machine learning structure, a feedback loop to allow learning for the one or more external system modules based on past data and on a random task sampling approach, and
providing, by a searchable system module library, a listing of acceptable external system modules hosted in the host environment.
2A, Prong One, Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) automated risk underwriting and scoring process.
Reviewing the data for risk assessments and making a determination based on predefined criteria as recited in the claims are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data.
The claims as recited suggest evaluation of the outputs based on an open source where the data is constantly changing to reflect and accurate and current risk underwriting measure (See App. Spec. paras. 0009-0011).
These risk scores can be used for insurance underwriting, premium setting, and other risk-transfer decisions in a secure environment that makes underwriting more flexible, data-driven and easier to update.
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a computing system, processor and network(App. Spec. paras. 0036-0041 see also Figs. 1-2), there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
The next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
2A – Prong Two
Courts have found that claims directed to improving a technological field or computer itself and where the abstract concept is tied to performing a specific function might survive the Alice two-step analysis thereby preventing such claims from preempting other applications of the underlying idea (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P, 773 F.3d at 1257, 1259 – claims recited “a specific way to automate the creation of a composite web page by an outsource provider that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by websites on the Internet”).
Beyond the abstract idea of personalized customer incentive determination, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a, processor (see App. Spec. paras. 0036-0041; Figs. 1-2), there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
Although the claims recite:
providing, by at least one processor, a host environment for a plurality of external system modules, the a plurality of external system modules providing input data over the data interface and being allocated as data processing part to the risk-transfer analyzing structure,
providing, by an electronic connector, access for the external system modules to the processing entity of the automated digital processing core via [[the]] a network infrastructure, wherein the open system architecture comprises at least one digital architecture section having open source code accessible for the external system modules, and wherein the external system modules are dock on to the automated digital processing core via the open source code by providing their input data and input data processing modules to the digital system platform, and the external system modules are integrated into the risk-transfer analyzing structure as processing entity via the network infrastructure,
providing, by a security monitor comprising one or more filters arranged between the digital processing core and the one or more external system modules, settable security parameters defining technical characteristic parameter values for the one or more external system modules for accepting or blocking an access of the one or more external system modules to the digital processing core,
an input data processing structure providing, by the one or more external system modules, an input data processing structure including a measurement value comparison structure comparing values of the automated digital system and the one or more external system modules, a data standardizing structure, a measurement value weighing structure, data validation structure for repeated application of the one or more filter means to the one or more external system modules initiating a security check, in predefined time intervals, by applying the one or more filter means to the one or more external system modules in the system module library, a machine learning structure, which is integrable to the risk-transfer analyzing structure via a synchronization segment ensuring the process flow between the one or more external system modules and the risk-transfer analysis structure of the automated digital system,
providing, by the security monitor including the machine learning structure, a feedback loop to allow learning for the one or more external system modules based on past data and on a random task sampling approach, and
providing, by a searchable system module library, a listing of acceptable external system modules hosted in the host environment.”
As recited it suggests a process similar to a feedback loop in which feedback is used to update the data fed the model. It suggests evaluating data albeit from an “
data validation structure for repeated application of the one or more filter means to the one or more external system modules initiating a security check, in predefined time intervals, by applying the one or more filter means to the one or more external system modules in the system module library, a machine learning structure, which is integrable to the risk-transfer analyzing structure via a synchronization segment ensuring the process flow between the one or more external system modules and the risk-transfer analysis structure of the automated digital system,
providing, by the security monitor including the machine learning structure, a feedback loop to allow learning for the one or more external system modules based on past data and on a random task sampling approach,
These suggest evaluating current information with historical information which serves as the baseline and adjusting accordingly with subsequent iterations of the evaluation.
Absent is any support of what constitutes the technical improvement and HOW it is applied. Also there is no support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the iterative evaluation process.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which evaluation is performed and not one of a technology or technological field. The additional elements of computer and network…” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). They merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (data processing) and thus fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea is the implementation of the steps through a computer system which are described at a high level of generality, where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Unlike DDR where the improvement was to a computer centric problem, a specific improvement to the way computers operate as a result of their interactions with the internet, in processing the data, absent is any support for a similar improvement.
The amendments to the claims suggest comparing the outputs of the ML models with the baseline established and adjusting accordingly and also provide additional description of the elements used in this process. Absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the process.
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements are computer device which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-17 provide additional details about how the predefined rules are applied to the evaluation process. For example, claims 2-5 provide additional details about the different factors and modules that do the evaluation, do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-17 Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 18 which is illustrative of the independent claims including 1 recite:
A method, implemented by an open, digital data driven underwriting and loss event simulation system comprising an automated digital processing core for risk-transfer assessment based on risk measurements providing measures for
potential damages or losses related to a future occurrence of a defined loss event causing a physical impact or loss to an event-exposed structure, object or individual, wherein the automated digital processing core comprises a processing entity with a data interface for receiving input data of physical measurement values quantifying a risk parameter captured by measuring devices and a risk-transfer analyzing structure for processing the input data and allocating one or more risk-measure scores quantifying the potential damage or loss, and an output signal generator providing the one or more risk-measure scores as an output signal of the automated digital processing core, the method comprising:
providing, by at least one processor, a host environment for a plurality of external system modules, the a plurality of external system modules providing input data over the data interface and being allocated as data processing part to the risk-transfer analyzing structure,
providing, by an electronic connector, access for the external system modules to the processing entity of the automated digital processing core via [[the]] a network infrastructure, wherein the open system architecture comprises at least one digital architecture section having open source code accessible for the external system modules, and wherein the external system modules are dock on to the automated digital processing core via the open source code by providing their input data and input data processing modules to the digital system platform, and the external system modules are integrated into the risk-transfer analyzing structure as processing entity via the network infrastructure,
providing, by a security monitor comprising one or more filters arranged between the digital processing core and the one or more external system modules, settable security parameters defining technical characteristic parameter values for the one or more external system modules for accepting or blocking an access of the one or more external system modules to the digital processing core,
an input data processing structure providing, by the one or more external system modules, an input data processing structure including a measurement value comparison structure comparing values of the automated digital system and the one or more external system modules, a data standardizing structure, a measurement value weighing structure, data validation structure for repeated application of the one or more filter means to the one or more external system modules initiating a security check, in predefined time intervals, by applying the one or more filter means to the one or more external system modules in the system module library, a machine learning structure, which is integrable to the risk-transfer analyzing structure via a synchronization segment ensuring the process flow between the one or more external system modules and the risk-transfer analysis structure of the automated digital system,
providing, by the security monitor including the machine learning structure, a feedback loop to allow learning for the one or more external system modules based on past data and on a random task sampling approach, and
providing, by a searchable system module library, a listing of acceptable external system modules hosted in the host environment.”
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention (as recited in claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14-18) is directed towards an abstract idea of that is a method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).automated risk underwriting and scoring process.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g. computing system, processor, network; see App. specification, Figs.1-2). This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components to execute the steps.
The 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g. processor, processing device, computer, computing device) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Dependent 2-6, 8-12 and 14-17 provide additional details about the different steps. For example, claims 2-5 provides additional descriptive elements of and how the predefined rules are applied to perform the evaluation and do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14-18. are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019
Prosecution Insights