Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10th of April 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 08/20/2024 has been considered. Initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 17, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…receiving information identifying an insurance client lead; using the received information identifying the insurance client lead to identify, from a database of a plurality of insurance agents, a subset of one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents; transmitting a client lead notification to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents, the client lead notification corresponding to the insurance client lead; receiving a lead claim response to the client lead notification from a first insurance agent of the subset of the one or more insurance agents, the lead claim response indicating a claim of the insurance client lead by the first insurance agent; and in response to receiving the lead claim response from the first insurance agent, connecting the first insurance agent with the insurance client lead.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely connecting an insurance agent with an insurance client lead. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., programmable processing circuitry, storage medium, network, device). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., programmable processing circuitry, storage medium, network, device) to receive/transmit data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., programmable processing circuitry, storage medium, network, device) 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 or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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., programmable processing circuitry, storage medium, network, device) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claim 2, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the historical data is associated with the second plurality of individuals, and wherein each individual of the second plurality of individuals is represented as a data point corresponding to a value for each variable in the hyperdimensional model.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 3, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the information identifying the insurance client lead is received via the phone call with the insurance client lead and prior to transferring the phone call with the insurance client lead to the first insurance agent.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 4, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein both the client lead notification is transmitted and the lead claim response is received while the phone call with the insurance client lead is occurring and prior to transferring the phone call with the insurance client lead to the first insurance agent.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 5, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…receiving, from each of the plurality of insurance agents in the database, an indication as to whether the respective insurance agent of the plurality of insurance agents is currently available for a phone call, and wherein identifying the subset of one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents comprises using the received information identifying the insurance client lead and the indication as to whether the respective insurance agent of the plurality of insurance agents is currently available for the phone call.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 6, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the lead claim response is received from only the first insurance agent of the subset of the one or more insurance agents.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 7, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the received information identifying the insurance client lead includes a type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead and a location where the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead is to be applied.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 8, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein using the received information identifying the insurance client lead to identify the subset of one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents includes using the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead and the location where the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead is to be applied to identify the subset of one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents as those insurance agents offering the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead at the location where the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead is to be applied.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 9, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…setting a lead claim price to charge as a result of receiving the lead claim response to the client lead notification from the first insurance agent; and transmitting the lead claim price, along with the client lead notification, to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 10, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the lead claim price is determined using each of a type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead, a location where the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead is to be applied, a time of day when the client notification is transmitted, and a total number of insurance agents in the subset of one or more insurance agents identified from the database of the plurality of insurance agents.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 11, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the lead claim price is set to a first lead claim price and the first lead claim price is transmitted, along with the client lead notification, to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents, and further comprising: after transmitting the first lead claim price, decreasing the first lead claim price to a second, lesser lead claim price in response to a predetermined amount of time passing, after transmitting the client lead notification to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents, without yet having received the lead claim response; and transmitting the second, lesser lead claim price, along with the client lead notification, to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 12, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the client lead notification is transmitted to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents along with an indicator indicating whether the insurance client lead is currently waiting on a phone line to talk with an insurance agent of the subset of the one or more insurance agents.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 13, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the client lead notification is transmitted to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents additionally along with a type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead and a calculated estimated agent premium fee associated with the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 14, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…further comprising: in response to receiving the lead claim response from the first insurance agent, transmitting to the first insurance agent the received information identifying the insurance client lead.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 15, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…further comprising: in response to receiving the lead claim response from the first insurance agent, transmitting a feedback prompt to the first insurance agent requesting from the first insurance agent information relating to a sale of an insurance policy to the insurance client lead.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 16, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the information relating to the sale of the insurance policy to the insurance client lead included in the feedback prompt transmitted to the first insurance agent includes a request for information from the first insurance agent as to any additional insurance policy sold to the insurance client lead beyond a type of insurance policy indicted as desired by the insurance client lead in the received information identifying the insurance client lead.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 18, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the programmable processing circuitry is configured to cause the device to connect the first insurance agent with the insurance client lead by transferring a phone call with the insurance client lead to the first insurance agent, and wherein the programmable processing circuitry is configured to cause the device to both transmit the client lead notification and receive the lead claim response while the phone call with the insurance client lead is occurring and prior to transferring the phone call with the insurance client lead to the first insurance agent.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 19, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the programmable processing circuitry is further configured to: receive, from each of the plurality of insurance agents in the database, an indication as to whether the respective insurance agent of the plurality of insurance agents is currently available for a phone call, and identify the subset of one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents by using the received information identifying the insurance client lead and the indication as to whether the respective insurance agent of the plurality of insurance agents is currently available for the phone call.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 20, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the programmable processing circuitry is further configured to: set a first lead claim price to charge as a result of receiving the lead claim response to the client lead notification from the first insurance agent, transmit the first lead claim price, along with the client lead notification, to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents, after transmitting the first lead claim price, decrease the first lead claim price to a second, lesser lead claim price in response to a predetermined amount of time passing, after transmitting the client lead notification to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents, without yet having received the lead claim response, and transmit the second, lesser lead claim price, along with the client lead notification, to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madeyski (US 10,489,798 B1).
As per Claims 1 and 17:
Madeyski as shown discloses the following limitations:
receiving information identifying an insurance client lead; (See at least Fig. 3, Item 305)
using the received information identifying the insurance client lead to identify, from a database of a plurality of insurance agents, a subset of one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents; (See at least Fig. 3, Items 315 and 320)
transmitting a client lead notification to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents, the client lead notification corresponding to the insurance client lead; (See at least Fig. 3, Items 315 and 325)
receiving a lead claim response to the client lead notification from a first insurance agent of the subset of the one or more insurance agents, the lead claim response indicating a claim of the insurance client lead by the first insurance agent; and in response to receiving the lead claim response from the first insurance agent, connecting the first insurance agent with the insurance client lead. (See at least Fig. 3, Items 325 and 330, response = feedback received from the insurance agent)
As per Claim 7:
Madeyski as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the received information identifying the insurance client lead includes a type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead and a location where the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead is to be applied. (See at least Column 8, Line 20-25, “...enter personal information, information about a desired insurance product and/or information...")
As per Claim 8:
Madeyski as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein using the received information identifying the insurance client lead to identify the subset of one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents includes using the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead and the location where the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead is to be applied to identify the subset of one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents as those insurance agents offering the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead at the location where the type of insurance policy desired by the insurance client lead is to be applied. (See at least Fig. 3, Item 310, Column 12, Lines 43-55, “…user may desire to view a number of leads with a specified distance from a location…”)
As per Claim 9:
Madeyski as shown discloses the following limitations:
setting a lead claim price to charge as a result of receiving the lead claim response to the client lead notification from the first insurance agent; and transmitting the lead claim price, along with the client lead notification, to each of the subset of the one or more insurance agents from the plurality of insurance agents. (See at least Column 7, Lines 45-51, “...each of the one or more insurance leads, the price corresponding to quality tier of each insurance lead...")
As per Claim 14:
Madeyski as shown discloses the following limitations:
in response to receiving the lead claim response from the first insurance agent, transmitting to the first insurance agent the received information identifying the insurance client lead. (See at least Column 14, Lines 29-67, “...providing one or more insurance leads to an insurance agent…may include information...")
As per Claim 15:
Madeyski as shown discloses the following limitations:
in response to receiving the lead claim response from the first insurance agent, transmitting a feedback prompt to the first insurance agent requesting from the first insurance agent information relating to a sale of an insurance policy to the insurance client lead. (See at least Column 14, Lines 19-28, “...feedback received from the insurance agent and/or agency associated with an outcome for individual verified leads...")
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madeyski in view of Kim Woo-Sung (hereinafter "Kim"); (KR 20100095315 A).
As per Claim 2:
Madeyski discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, Madeyski does not disclose the following limitation. But Kim discloses the following limitations:
wherein connecting the first insurance agent with the insurance client lead comprises transferring a phone call with the insurance client lead to the first insurance agent. (See at least claim 1, “…execute of phone call…insurance agent sales support system)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the insurance lead marketplace system of Madeyski the transfer the phone call to insurance agent as taught by Kim since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5.
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 on 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
12/13/2025
Prosecution Insights