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 6th of March 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 17, and 19 were amended.
Claims 2-4 and 18 were cancelled.
Art rejection was withdrawn necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claims 1, 5-17, 19, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6th of March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 5-17, 19, and 20, Applicant argues “…amended independent claim 1 explicitly recites a specific, limited, and non-conventional sequence that, when executed according to the required order of actions, can achieve a particular, useful in transferring a warm insurance client lead phone call to an already claiming and matched insurance agent.” And further argues “…amended independent claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely performing a series of steps or actions to achieve a useful method of transferring a warm insurance-client led phone call to an already claimed and matching insurance agent amounts to nothing more than a business process performed using generic technology. Therefore, the examiner is unconvinced that the additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. Merely using generic technology to perform technology to perform the business process does not overcome the 101 rejection.
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, 5-17, 19, and 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 at least by transferring a phone call with the insurance client lead to the first insurance agent, wherein the programmable processing circuitry is configured to cause the device to received the information identifying the insurance client lead via the phone call with the insurance client lead and prior transferring the 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.” 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, phone call). “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, phone call) 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, phone call) 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, phone call) 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 5-16 and 19-20 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 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 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 05/20/2026
Prosecution Insights