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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 3/23/2026 has been acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
Applicant’s representative argues that the added limitations now recite patent eligible subject matter because the added limitations:
“allow[s] for more efficient computer modeling and better usage of computing resources. For example, if a particular loss scenario rule being modeled takes significant or unacceptable amounts of computer time to complete modeling, or if modeling of the requested rule results in a failure, modeling of that loss scenario rule can be terminated, and a new (more computationally efficient) loss scenario rule could be defined and modeled.").
In response, the added limitations is not a function but rather a result being provided on a user interface which “indicates that modeling of the custom loss scenario rule consumes excessive computer time to complete modeling, and modeling a more computationally-efficient custom loss scenario rule after termination of modeling of the custom loss scenario rule”.
Accordingly, this is not a positive recitation of an active function but rather the result of a function which is not even positively recited.
Furthermore, the additional elements (such as a generic processor, a database and a user interface) do not improve (1) the processor or database and user interface, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (computing device or system) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
None of the steps, functions and/or elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed processor, database and user interface are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 11 is directed to a method. Claim 1 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong One: For example, claim 1 recites the following limitations absent of the bolded limitations that are understood to recite an abstract idea:
Claim 1 recites:
A system for customized claim loss analytics comprising:
a database for storing claims data related to one or more loss events; and
a front-end processor in communication with the claims database, the front end processor:
retrieving the claims data from the claims database;
generating a front-end user interface with a plurality of user elements configured to allow a user to select one or more business rules and one or more data points for a custom loss scenario rule;
receiving user input related to the selection of the one or more business rules and one or more data points for the custom loss scenario rule;
generating the custom loss scenario rule based on the user input;
modeling the custom loss scenario rule on one or more computer systems;
providing a real-time indication in the front-end user interface of modeling progress of the custom loss scenario rule by the one or more computer systems, the front-end user interface allowing the user to selectively terminate modeling of the custom loss scenario rule based on the real-time indication of the modeling progress and indicates that modeling of the custom loss scenario rule consumes excessive computer time to complete modeling, and modeling a more computationally-efficient custom loss scenario rule after termination of modeling of the custom loss scenario rule; and
transmitting the custom loss scenario rule to a primary claims analytics processor for implementation into a production data flow process.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the primary claims analytics processor retrieves the claims data from the database.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the primary claims analytics processor determines a propensity score for the claims data.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the primary claims analytics processor identifies one or more existing business rules triggered by the claims data.
Claim 5.recites: wherein the front-end processor retrieves the propensity score for the claims data and the one or more identified existing business rules triggered by the claims data from the primary claims analytics processor.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the front-end processor displays the propensity score for the claims data and the one or more identified existing business rules triggered by the claims data in the front-end user interface.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the custom loss scenario rule includes one or more of the identified existing business rules triggered by the claims data.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the production data flow process includes applying one or more fraud detection algorithms to detect one or more fraud patterns in the claims data.
Claim 9 recites: wherein implementation of the custom loss scenario rule into the production data flow process caused the detection of the one or more fraud patterns to be altered.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the front-end user interface includes a plurality of user elements configured to allow the user to modify a saved custom loss scenario rule.
Claim 11 recites: A method for customized loss analytics, comprising: providing a database for storing claims data related to one or more loss events; and
providing a front-end processor in communication with the claims database, the front end processor:
retrieving the claims data from the claims database;
generating a front-end user interface with a plurality of user elements configured to allow a user to select one or more business rules and one or more data points for a custom loss scenario rule;
receiving user input related to the selection of the one or more business rules and one or more data points for the custom loss scenario rule;
generating the custom loss scenario rule based on the user input;
modeling the custom loss scenario rule on one or more computer systems;
providing a real-time indication in the front-end user interface of modeling progress of the custom loss scenario rule by the one or more computer systems, the front-end user interface allowing the user to selectively terminate modeling of the custom loss scenario rule based on the real-time indication of the modeling progress indicates that modeling of the custom loss scenario rule consumes excessive computer time to complete modeling, and modeling a more computationally-efficient custom loss scenario rule after termination of modeling of the custom loss scenario rule; and
transmitting the custom loss scenario rule to a primary claims analytics processor for implementation into a production data flow process.
Claim 12 recites: retrieving by the primary claims analytics processor the claims data from the database.
Claim 13 recites: determining by the primary claims analytics processor a propensity score for the claims data.
Claim 14 recites: identifying by the primary claims analytics processor one or more existing business rules triggered by the claims data.
Claim 15 recites: retrieving by the front-end processor the propensity score for the claims data and the one or more identified existing business rules triggered by the claims data from the primary claims analytics processor.
Claim 16 recites: the step of displaying by the front-end processor the propensity score for the claims data and the one or more identified existing business rules triggered by the claims data in the front-end user interface.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the custom loss scenario rule includes one or more of the identified existing business rules triggered by the claims data.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the production data flow process comprises the step of applying one or more fraud detection algorithms to detect one or more fraud patterns in the claims data.
Claim 19 recites: wherein implementation of the custom loss scenario rule into the production data flow process causes the detection of the one or more fraud patterns to be altered.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the front-end user interface includes a plurality of user elements configured to allow the user to modify a saved custom loss scenario rule.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2), because they amount to limitations specifying steps or functions for managing fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance and mitigating risks.
The BRI of these limitations describes steps or functions for providing a real-time indication of modeling progress of a custom loss scenario rule by allowing a user to selectively terminate modelling of the custom loss scenario rule based on the real-time indication the modelling progress.
Step 2A, Prong two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the claims recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be additional limitations:
These limitations performing steps or functions of :
“providing a real-time indication in the front-end user interface of modeling progress of the custom loss scenario rule by the one or more computer systems, the front- end user interface allowing the user to selectively terminate modeling of the custom loss scenario rule based on the real-time indication of the modeling progress, and transmitting the custom loss scenario rule to a primary claims analytics processor for implementation into a production data flow process” merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, and describing usage of general and special purpose computer as tools to perform the invention.
The analytics processors and computer systems are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate between systems which are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer.
Performance of a retrieving or receiving step by a computer processor amounts to performing steps which amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Performing steps or functions by computer processor hardware merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
While the claims do not specify any particular manner of receiving, generating, modelling, retrieving and transmitting information, the breadth of the limitations reasonably includes collecting information by communicating between devices over a network, and allowing a user to selectively terminate modelling of the custom loss scenario rule based on the real-time indication of the modelling progress.
Reciting an "analytics processor” and a “user interface with a plurality of user elements” is understood to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(I), is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors which provide real-time indication of modeling progress of a custom loss scenario rules and allowing a user to selectively determine modeling of the custom loss scenario rule based on the real time indication of the modelling progress and transmitting the custom loss scenario rule to a primary claims analysis for implementation into a production data flow process.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of allowing a user to selectively terminate modelling of a custom loss scenario rule based on the real time indication of a modeling progress and transmitting the custom loss scenario rule based on the real time indication of the modeling progress, and performance of these functions or steps technologically does present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application. ,
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis. Retrieving and receiving information by computer hardware amounts to receiving and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir.
2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), buySAFE fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Independent claims 1 and 11: Independent claim 1 recites the same limitations as claim 11 but instead claims the device for performing the steps of process claim 11. The same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 11 are equally applicable to claim 1.
Positively reciting the processors. Database and a user interface does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for retrieving or collecting data, storing data and performing routine and conventional functions.
These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
Accordingly, the 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.
The claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components for receiving data, storing data performing generic functions without an inventive concept as they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or renders the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“modeling the custom loss scenario rule on one or more computer systems, and providing a real-time indication in the front-end user interface of modeling progress of the custom loss scenario rule by the one or more computer systems, the front-end user interface allowing the user to selectively terminate modeling of the custom loss scenario rule based on the real-time indication of the modeling progress and indicates that modeling of the custom loss scenario rule consumes excessive computer time to complete modeling, and modeling a more computationally-efficient custom loss scenario rule after termination of modeling of the custom loss scenario rule:, as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 11.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
March 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights