DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 1/28/2026. Amendments to claims 1, 11 and 12 have been entered. Claims 13, 14, 15 and 20 have been cancelled. New claims 21, 22, 23 and 24 have been entered. Claims 1-12, 16-19 and 21-24 are pending and have been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 .
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 1-12, 16-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process and claim 11 is directed to a computer program product executed by a processor; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for providing customized insurance coverage, i.e. managing insurance, which is a fundamental economic practice and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, in bold below, recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. (Currently Amended) A method implemented by a system comprising at least one processor and a memory storing processor executable code for a customization engine, the method comprising:
generating, by the customization engine, a customer specific insurance application specific to a first user;
providing, by the customization engine, access to the customer specific insurance application for the first user in an invitation comprising a unique customer link, the invitation being initiated by an input from a second user;
dynamically, by the customization engine, building and filling-in the customer specific insurance application based on one or more inputs from the first user and on automatically populating the customer specific insurance application with non- standardized data to provide a completed customer specific insurance application, wherein dynamically building the customer specific insurance application comprises:
determining, by the customization engine, based on the one or more inputs from the first user, that the first user has specialized insurance needs, and
in response to determining that the first user has specialized insurance needs, generating, by the customization engine, in real-time, an additional set of questions specific to the specialized insurance needs of the first user;
providing, by the customization engine, a customized insurance request based on the completed customer specific insurance application to a third user; and
facilitating, by the customization engine, insurance coverage from the third user for the first user based on the customized insurance request.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “at least one processor and a memory storing processor executable code”, i.e. a customization engine which is software, and “a unique customer link” in claim 1 and “A computer program product for a customization engine, the computer program product being stored on a memory and executable by at least one processor”, i.e. a customization engine which is software, and “a unique customer link” in claim 11, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea as does claim 11.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. a processor suitably programmed communicating over a generic network, to perform the steps of generating, providing, building and filling-in, determining, generating, providing and facilitating. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least paragraphs [0024], [0032], the link is merely a URL directed to an Internet address and is claimed at a very high level of generality and [0057-0063] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea as is claim 11.
Under step 2B, 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 of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible and neither is claim 11.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of providing customized insurance coverage, i.e. managing insurance, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-12, 16-19 and 21-24 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claim 2 further refines the abstract idea by automating a manual abstract idea process. The use of “generate” and “dynamic” are due to the additional element of a generic processor with memory programmed with a customizable engine, i.e. software, on which to apply the abstract idea. Claim 3 further refines the abstract idea by automating the manual process of filling in an application that can be modified by input of a second user. But for the nominal recitation of a generic processor programmed to automate these steps this can be performed manually. Claim 4 recites the additional elements of generating a unique link and pin based on unique customer identification information which is claimed at a very high level of generality such that it is merely generating a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to identify an Internet address as is well known in the art. The claim further recites automating the insurance application generation based a template, the user account information and non-standardized information which can be completed manually but for the nominal recitation of generic computing elements. Claim 5 recites automating the manual abstract idea steps of populating the insurance application empty answer fields based on information. There is no technical detail in what “manipulating” non-standardized information into a standardized format means such that a human being could not gather and manipulate information to fill an insurance application. Claims 6 and 16 further refine the abstract idea by defining the various entities involved in performing the abstract idea. It is well known that these entities work in cooperation to provide an insurance product to a requesting customer. Claims 7 and 17 further refine the abstract idea by claiming user authentication to access the application. This is claimed at a very high level of generality providing no technical implementation details. Claims 8 and 18 further refine the abstract idea by automating the abstract idea steps of building the insurance application through adapting one or more inputs in the customer insurance application by adding questions and fields for additional user information. This automating manual abstract idea steps. Claims 9 and 19 further refine the abstract idea by identifying insurance coverages in a standardized form that a third user uses to insure the customer. This is claimed at a very high level of generality such that a human can manually complete this step. Claim 10 further refines the abstract idea by reciting the final step in managing an insurance coverage request which is to provide the requestor with the purchased contract documentation of the coverage. Automating this step does not provide anything more than the abstract idea. Claim 12, see claims 3, 4 and 5 above. Claim 21 further refines the abstract idea by reciting that there are different authentication methods and levels across the first, second and third users. This is claimed at a very high level of generality and having different authentication levels for different people is well-understood in security. Claim 22 further refines the abstract idea by, stating at a high level of generality, merging data into a standardized format which does not produce any technical improvement. Claim 23 recites the abstract idea of gathering data from a third-party to build the customized insurance application. This can be completed manually. Claim 24 recites the conventional insignificant post-solution computing activity of storing the insurance application.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for providing customized insurance coverage, i.e. managing insurance) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for providing customized insurance coverage, i.e. managing insurance) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 1/28/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks off 1/28/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues , ‘“…claim 1 is not directed to a fundamental economic practice, a method of managing commercial interactions, or other organizing principles of human behavior. Rather, the claim is directed to a specific, computer-implemented technological process carried out by a "customization engine" that dynamically generates, structures, and completes a customer-specific insurance application through real-time adaptive content generation and automated population with non-standardized data. The claim's focus is thus the operation of a particularized software engine that improves how computerized systems build and complete individualized electronic applications in a multi-user environment, not the underlying business objective of obtaining insurance.
Critically, the recited functionality is not a mere automation of human paperwork or interpersonal insurance solicitation. Claim 1 requires (i) generating an application "specific to a first user," (ii) providing access via an invitation including a "unique customer link" initiated by a second user, and (iii) "dynamically" building and filling the application based on user inputs while automatically populating the application with non-standardized data to yield a completed and customized application. These features reflect concrete computer-centric mechanisms-unique-link based access provisioning, dynamic document construction, and automated incorporation of heterogeneous data-that are rooted in computerized processing and electronic workflow management.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The recited claims are directed to the age old commercial and fundamental practice of filling out an insurance application based on a customer’s needs. Since insurance has been offered it is customized as every customer required different coverage amounts, time period, etc. This is made clear in Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0002], “…herein is a dynamic electronic insurance application workflow system (“system”) to provide a database-driven insurance application and approval process for a customer seeking insurance from an insurance company.” The underlying “system”, i.e. the generic computer elements suitably programmed to perform the abstract idea, are in no way improved or the interacting between elements improved. The abstract idea may be improved through the “dynamic” and real-time” processing of otherwise manual steps, but an improved abstract idea is still abstract. Again, generating an insurance application specific to a user has always been the issue when determining insurance contracts, i.e. financial agreements to mitigate risk.
The unique link for inviting the user is merely an additional element existing as a computerized address to a specific website for automatically filling out an insurance application. This invitation can be completed in a myriad of ways to invite the customer to fill out the insurance application to include manual means.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, ‘“Moreover, claim 1 expressly recites real-time, conditional generation of an additional set of questions "specific to the specialized insurance needs of the first user," triggered by the engine's determination-based on the first user's inputs-that specialized needs exist. This is not an abstract instruction to "ask more questions" in the ordinary sense; it is a specific adaptive questionnaire-generation technique in which the engine determines when baseline questions are insufficient and, in response, generates new application content on-the-fly. The claim therefore addresses a technical problem encountered in computerized form-generation systems-how to dynamically tailor an electronic application to user-specific circumstances without resorting to static templates or standardized fields-and provides a particular technical solution: real-time generation of additional, need-specific questions combined with automatic population of non- standardized data to produce a completed, customer-specific electronic application suitable for downstream processing.
Finally, the remaining steps-providing a customized insurance request to a third user and facilitating coverage based on that request-do not convert the claim into an abstract commercial interaction. They merely define the system's technical output and its use within a networked, multi-party workflow enabled by the customization engine's dynamic application-construction process.”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) discusses of cases in which the Federal Circuit determined that the claims did not reflect an improvement to computer-functionality or other technology. For instance, if a claimed process can be performed without a computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit "cannot be characterized as an improvement in a computer" because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further discussion of these cases, and additional examples of what the courts have indicated does and does not show an improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
In light of the Alice decision and the guidance provided in the MPEP, the features listed in the claims, are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. At best these features may be considered to be a business solution, using computers, to a problem of providing customized insurance coverage, i.e. managing insurance. The alleged benefits that Applicants argue are due to business decisions, using computers, rather than any improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. By relying on computing devices to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (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). As discussed in the rejection above, the components of the instant system, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these components. At best, Applicant has claimed features that may improve an abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still abstract, (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (‘“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89-90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”’
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. There is nothing, for example, in the pending claims to suggest that the claimed “at least one processor and a memory storing processor executable code”, i.e. a customization engine which is software, and “a unique customer link” are somehow made more efficient or that the manner in which these elements carry out their basic functions is otherwise improved in any way. The alleged advantages that Applicants argue do not concern an improvement in computer capabilities but instead relate to an alleged improvement in providing customized insurance coverage, i.e. managing insurance, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity.
In summary, the computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejections above, rejection of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
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 CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights