DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement
2. The Amendment/Request for consideration filed 10/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-22 are amended.
4. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
5. Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections- The specification describes a disclosure that is generally related to insurance selection wherein the type of coverage is based upon determining what coverage one may need [see specification, ¶0002-¶0003]. Insurance, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a contract between the insured and the insurer where there exists an agreement between the parties, based upon certain terms and conditions; wherein a certain amount of resource, usually in the form of money, will be deployed by the insurer in order to replace the lost of something of the insured (e.g., health, life, house, car, business, etc.,). The insured (person, entity, etc.,) conventionally pays a premium (or fee) to the insurer as part of the agreement of the insurer to pay the insured in the event of a lost (called coverage). The courts have long determined that contracts (or agreements between parties and contractual relationships) are abstract- particularly involving commercial or legal interactions [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(B), also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.].
6. In the previous office action dated 07/02/2025 it was determined that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of, “adjusting user-specific underwriting information” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human behavior because the claim(s) involve fundamental economic principles or practices that include commercial or legal interactions including transactions such as contractual relationships and managing an insurance policy. It was also determined that the additional elements of the claims (i.e., one or more processors and storage medium) were recited at a high level of generality and represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform/implement the abstract idea by doing no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to adjusting user-specific underwriting information. It was also determined that when viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of adjusting user-specific underwriting information using computer technology.
7. Now, the Applicant’s claim 1 recites,
“a computer-implement method for dynamically adjusting user-specific underwriting information in real-time within a distributed underwriting platform…” in the preamble and,
[A] “storing,…, a carrier -mapping data structure comprising a set of first set of carrier-neutral question templates, and a second set of carrier-specific question templates mapped to underwriting parameters of a plurality of carrier systems;
[B] receiving,…,user-providing responses to the first set of carrier-neutral question templates;
[C] executing,…, a carrier-selection algorithm that generates a plurality of product and coverage recommendations based on the user-provided responses, and identifies a corresponding plurality of carriers providing carrier-specific products and coverages;
[D] generating,…,a user-specific set of active question templates answers by selectively mapping underwriting parameters of the plurality of identified carriers to the second set of carrier-specific question templates;
[E] dynamically adjusting,…, the plurality of carriers providing carrier-specific products and coverages in response to incremental user provided responses to the user specific set of active question templates; and
[F] in parallel with the carrier adjustment, automatically pruning inactive carrier-specific question templates from an in-memory question graph to eliminate question templates associated with carriers that have been removed from consideration, thereby reducing processing overhead and improving system response latency”
8. Conventionally, underwriting in insurance is the process by which the insurer (or insurance carrier) assesses and mitigates the risk of providing certain insurance coverage to an individual, business or entity and then calculates a premium (or fee) for assuming said risk. Conventionally, an underwriting process for insurers (i.e., insurance carriers) require: [1] information gathering-wherein the underwriter collects detailed information and data about a potentially insured applicant in the form of various questions, exams or reports, etc.,; [2] risk assessment- wherein the collected information/data is analyzed using mathematical algorithms (i.e., data analytics, statistical models or statistical analysis, etc.,), [3] decision-making-wherein in the insurer decides the terms and conditionals that the insurer is willing to provide to the applicant. The decision of the insurer to underwrite the applicant is made in terms of an offer to the applicant- whereby the insurer sets forth specific terms (e.g., exclusions of activities) or conditions to manage the risk of having a claim by the insured be made unless it meets the terms and conditions of the policy.
9. It is maintained that the amended language recites claim language, for example, “storing…, a set of first set of carrier-neutral question templates, and a second set of carrier-specific question templates mapped to underwriting parameters…; receiving,…, user-providing responses to the first set of carrier-neutral question templates;…”, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered part of the abstract idea of insurance underwriting (or part of the information gathering/data collection underwriting process) which would be required by an insurer. Specifically, “carrier-neutral question templates” can be interpreted as a series of common questions (e.g., name, age, weight, height, etc.,) that would be broadly asked to any individual applicant by any set of carriers/insurers. It is maintained that the limitation of “carrier-specific templates” may also be a series of questions that are specific to the particular insurer (or insurers) (e.g., health, lifestyle, property details, driving history) but are still commonly used for underwriting information gathering/ data collection but more specific to a particular type of insurer. For example, lifestyle questions may be more pertinent to health and life insurers than to insurers of homes and other property.
10. It is maintained that the amended claim language of, “executing,…, a carrier selection algorithm that generates a plurality of product and coverage recommendations based on the user-provided responses, and identifies a corresponding plurality of carriers providing a carrier-specific products and coverages” under the broadest reasonable interpretation- as currently amended, performs conventional underwriting risk analysis (i.e., executing,…, a carrier selection algorithm ). The limitations wherein the algorithm, “…generates a plurality of product and coverage recommendations based on the user-provided response, and identifies a corresponding plurality of carriers providing carrier-specific products and coverages;…” are results that are performed by the algorithm, but the specification does not describe how the algorithm achieves the result(s) claimed. Thus the executing a carrier selection algorithm does not provide significantly more to the judicial exception because the limitation merely implements the judicial exception and also introduces 35 U.S.C. 112a issues which limits what is being considered [see MPEP 2163.03(V)- “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved…”; and MPEP 2161.01(I.)- “…original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.”]
11. Wherein claim 1 also recites, “generating, using a dynamic question-pruning module, a user-specific set of active question templates answers by selectively mapping underwriting parameters…” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception wherein the addition of using “a dynamic question-pruning module” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because dynamic question-pruning model merely selects a particular data source or selects a type of data to be manipulated which the courts have found to be insignificant extra solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)- Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937; Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ]
12. It has been considered wherein the Applicant asserts that the amended claim language (at least claim 1) provides features that solve a technical problem which would be the sequential and evaluation of insurance carriers which result in “redundant network calls”, “high memory usage” and “unnecessary latency”. However, the courts have determined that relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible [e.g., see Alice 134 S.Ct at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); also DDR Holdings, LLC v Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(finding a computer-implemented method patent eligible where the claims recite a specific manipulation of a general-purpose computer such that the claims do not rely on a “computer network operating in its normal manner).
13. According to the specification [¶0032-¶0037], the elements/ computing components are described at a high level of generality and operate in normal manner [e.g., “[0035] Hardware processor 104 may be one or more central processing units (CPUs), semiconductor-based microprocessors, and/or hardware devices suitable for retrieval and execution of instructions stored in computer readable medium 105. Processor may fetch, decode, and execute instructions 120-150, to control processes or operations for generating product and coverage recommendations.”]. it is maintained that these processes are well-understood, routine and conventional data gathering and manipulation activities that do not make the claims patent eligible. [see Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2357 (“Simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, was not enough to supply an inventive concept).
14. Thus for the following reasons, the amended claim language remains rejected below:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
14. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
15. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
16. Claim 1 recites, “executing,…, a carrier selection algorithm that generates a plurality of product and coverage recommendations…, identifies a corresponding plurality of carriers…”.
17. According to the specification, “[0050]…the product and coverage recommendation system 100 may include one or more modules for generating insurance product and coverage recommendations using machine learning techniques…, the system may include: (1) a question marshalling module 120, for performing underwriting question consolidation and standardization based upon sources of underwriting criteria…(2) a product and coverage module 130, for determining carrier-agnostic or generic product and coverage recommendations…,(3) a multi-carrier recommendation module 140, for generating carrier specific coverage recommendations…the modules may operate simultaneously and cause the output to be dynamically adjusted…[0052]…the question marshalling module 120 may include machine learning modules, such as e.g., one or more AI/machine learning techniques…decision trees, boosting, support-vector, nearest-neighbor algorithm…”.
The specification does not provide the steps or procedures for the algorithm performing the functions of, “generating a plurality of product and coverage recommendations, and identifying a corresponding plurality of carriers”. the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2161.01(I), 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
18. In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method and claims 12-22 are directed to a system.
19. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of, “…adjusting user-specific underwriting information” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity because it (at least claim 1) involves fundamental economic principles or practices including insurance, mitigating risk, legal interactions (e.g., business relationships and financial transactions) or agreements in the form of contractual relationships managing insurance policy and in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
20. At least claim 1 recites,
“a computer-implement method for dynamically adjusting user-specific underwriting information in real-time within a distributed underwriting platform…
[A] “storing,…, a carrier -mapping data structure comprising a set of first set of carrier-neutral question templates, and a second set of carrier-specific question templates mapped to underwriting parameters of a plurality of carrier systems;
[B] receiving,…,user-providing responses to the first set of carrier-neutral question templates;
[C] executing,…, a carrier-selection algorithm that generates a plurality of product and coverage recommendations based on the user-provided responses, and identifies a corresponding plurality of carriers providing carrier-specific products and coverages;
[D] generating,…,a user-specific set of active question templates answers by selectively mapping underwriting parameters of the plurality of identified carriers to the second set of carrier-specific question templates;
[E] dynamically adjusting,…, the plurality of carriers providing carrier-specific products and coverages in response to incremental user provided responses to the user specific set of active question templates; and
[F] in parallel with the carrier adjustment, automatically pruning inactive carrier-specific question templates from an in-memory question graph to eliminate question templates associated with carriers that have been removed from consideration, thereby reducing processing overhead and improving system response latency”
21. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
22. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as, “one or more computing processors”, “a machine-readable storage medium” are described at a high level of generality [see Applicant’s specification, ¶0032-¶0037, but particularly ¶0035-“Hardware processor 104 may be one or more central processing units (CPUs), semiconductor-based microprocessors, and/or hardware devices suitable for retrieval and execution of instructions stored in computer readable medium 105. Processor may fetch, decode, and execute instructions 120-150, to control processes or operations for generating product and coverage recommendations.”] and thus represents the use of a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Moreover, the particular clam language of “…generating, using a dynamic question-pruning module, a user-specific set of active question templates answers by selectively mapping underwriting parameters…” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception wherein the addition of using “a dynamic question-pruning module” does not provide an additional element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because the dynamic question-pruning model merely selects a particular data source or selects a type of data to be manipulated which the courts have found to be insignificant extra solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)]
23. It is maintained that when analyzed under step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. When viewed in combination as a whole, the combination of elements merely describes computer processes that are well-understood, routine and conventional (e.g., data gathering and manipulation activities, etc.,) that are employed to implement the judicial exception-adjusting user-specific underwriting information- using computer technology that is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced in the specification [¶0032-¶0037].Therefore, it is maintained that the additional elements does no more than employ a computer system as a tool to implement (or automate) the abstract idea, and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself [MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) (f) &(h)]. Thus independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
24. Independent claim 12 also does not present additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception.
25. Claims 2-11 and 13-22 are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
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 DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692