DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the first amendment to non-final filed on June 11, 2026.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1–18 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1–18 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–6 and 13–18 are directed to a machine (“A system” and “A non-transitory computer-readable media”), and claims 7–12 are directed to a process (“A method”). Thus, claims 1–18 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–18, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
generating a threshold coverage value based, at least in part, on an insurable obligation associated with a good or service that a vendor will supply to a client and an annual value associated with the good or service, the threshold coverage value indicating a coverage value that is beneficial for satisfying a contractual obligation associated with the client;
determining a level of compliance of a user account associated with the insurable obligation based, at least in part, on the threshold coverage value, wherein determining the level of compliance comprises comparing an insurance coverage value corresponding to the insurable obligation associated with the user account to the threshold coverage value;
determining that the level of compliance is insufficient to meet the insurable obligation;
. . . a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, or both; and
. . . an insurance application configured to receive, . . . an input indicating information required to obtain an insurance coverage that is sufficient to meet the insurable obligation;
determining an exposure score associated with the user account based, at least in part, on the level of compliance and the annual value associated with the good or service;
generating a ranking associated with the user account based, at least in part, on the exposure score relative to one or more additional exposure scores of additional vendor accounts associated with the client; and
. . . display the exposure score of the user account relative to the one or more additional exposure scores of the additional vendor accounts based, at least in part, on the ranking.
The claims, therefore, recite determining a coverage amount and contract compliance and then updating insurance, which is the abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of insurance.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“processors”, “computer-readable media”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “computing device”, “remote computing resource”, “network”, and “non-transitory computer-readable media”). The claims also recite “causing the GUI to display, on the user computing device”. The additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to receive data, determine a value, and display information. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 7 and 13 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 1. There are no additional elements recited in these claims other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“graphical user interface (GUI)”, “computing device”, “non-transitory computer-readable media”, and “processors”). The only differences are that the features of claim 1 are implemented by a method in claim 7 and by computer program instructions in claim 13. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claims 7 and 13 are also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–18 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 to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the insurance determination recited in claims 1, 7, and 13 by further specifying the user account—“associated with the vendor or the client” and “sub-vendor account”.
For claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the insurance determination recited in claims 1, 7, and 13 by further specifying where the notification is sent—“alternative user account being associated with the vendor or the client” and “from a remote computing resource to the user computing device”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing device” and “GUI”). These claims do recite a remote computing resource and network, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to send and receive information. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 10, and 16, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the insurance determination recited in claims 1, 7, and 13 by further specifying the insurable obligation—“supply contract, errors and omissions coverage, standalone cyber coverage, intellectual property infringement coverage, general liability coverage, or combinations thereof”.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claim limitations are not generic computer operations, but instead a specific technical implementation to produce the concrete result of exposure visualizations across multiple vendor accounts. Applicant explains that the claims recite specific data processing steps, generating rankings, and causing a GUI to display the results, similar to USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 42 and 37. The features described by Applicant, however, do not recite any technological improvements, but instead only recite improvements to the abstract idea of determining compliance. The claims merely apply the generic technology to make these various determinations more efficient, rather than improving the technology itself in any way. Thus, claims 1–18 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The rejections of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments. The following limitations of claim 1 are not taught by the previously cited prior art:
determining a level of compliance of a user account associated with the insurable obligation based, at least in part, on the threshold coverage value, wherein determining the level of compliance comprises comparing an insurance coverage value corresponding to the insurable obligation associated with the user account to the threshold coverage value; and
determining an exposure score associated with the user account based, at least in part, on the level of compliance and the annual value associated with the good or service.
The prior art reference of record that is most closely related to the claim limitation recited above is Wilson, U.S. Patent App. No. 2005/0049891 (“Wilson”), which discusses determining compliance. Wilson, however, discusses determining and displaying compliance based on compliance information, but does not disclose determining compliance based on an insurance coverage amount and then using that to determine an exposure score, as in the claimed invention. And, no reference could be found for determining compliance and exposure in this way. Independent claims 7 and 13 include substantially the same features as claim 1. Accordingly, the prior rejections of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Blazek et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0158451, discloses insurance coverage limits based on various information.
Hendershot, U.S. Patent App. No. 2003/0050804, discloses contract compliance monitoring for insurance claims.
Ramesh Babu, U.S. Patent App. No. 2015/0106118, discloses a contract compliance module for multiple vendors.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 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 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights