DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending in this instant application per claim amendments filed on 11/17/2025 by Applicant, wherein Claim 1 has been amended and new Claims 2-13 have been added. Claims 1, 12 and 13 are independent claims reciting method, apparatus and non-transient storage medium claims. Newly added Claims 2-11 are the only dependent method claims. No IDS has been filed by the Applicant so far.
This Office Action is a final rejection in response to the claim amendments filed by the Applicant on 17 NOVEMBER 2025 for its original application of 26 AUGUST 2024 that is titled: “Products and Processes for Indicating Documents for a Life Based Product”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-13 have now been rejected herein.
Drawings filed on 11/17/2025 by the Applicant (as FIGs. 1 and 2) have been considered and entered.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 11/17/2025 are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claim 1 is the only independent method claim.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1--YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a method for determining a settlement amount for a life insurance policy, the method comprised of: receiving [[a plurality of documents associated with the life insurance policy; assigning a respective value to each received document, in which the value indicates a level of importance; determining a summation of [[each]] the received documents; determining an indication for the life insurance policy, in which the indication is based on a/the summation of the received documents and at least one of the values, in which the indication affects the settlement amount; and displaying the indication. In other words, the claim describes process/es for assisting the sale and purchase of life insurance policies over the Internet (per para [0003] of Specification). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance), mitigating risk and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors). Collecting documents, annotating their significance or verifying eligibility documents and determining an indication for the life insurance policy is performing tasks under certain methods of organizing human activity such as, but not limited to mitigating risk by performing actions involved in underwriting an insurance policy. The steps recited in the claims are performing certain methods of organizing human activity but for the implied use of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as workstations (which “may be computing devices, personal computers, laptop computers, mainframe computers, dumb terminals, data displays, Internet browsers, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), two-way pagers, wireless terminals, portable telephones, hand-held electronic devices, any other device that is capable of processing and computing information, or any combination of the same”, per para [0007] in Specification). These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1--YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of a processor, and a memory (claim 12). The workstations implied in these steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. It is noted that the method claim does not recite any hardware or software components. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2--NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a computer network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B--NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent apparatus Claim 12 and independent non-transient storage medium Claim 13, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-11, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., receiving an authentication of the at least one received document; assigning the respective value of each received document comprises determining the value based on a decision tree; displaying the indication comprises displaying a color that is based on the indication; in which a first color corresponds to a first indication and a second color corresponds to a second indication, in which the first indication and the second indication are different; in which the color corresponds to a quantity of documents received; in which the color corresponds to a marketability of the life insurance policy; storing the received documents, the determined value, and the indication into a database that comprises policy information for a plurality of available life insurance policies; retrieving the at least one life insurance policy that matches the at least one search criterion, and displaying the at least one retrieved life insurance policy; in which a purchaser of the life insurance policy assumes payment of the life insurance policy until death of an insured; in which a purchaser of the insurance policy is listed as a beneficiary of the life insurance policy in exchange for payment of the settlement amount to an insured; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1, which are also rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. The Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1.) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2.) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3.) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over a combination of references (Sakaue and Beres) as described below for each claim/ limitation.
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2006/0206438 filed by Sakaue et al. (hereinafter “Sakaue”), and further in view of Pub. No. US 2005/0210048 filed by Beres et al. (hereinafter “Beres”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
Examiner notes that all claims have been copied as recited by the Applicant to keep them readable and whole, even if the limitations within a claim that are not taught explicitly by the primary/previous reference (are noted in parentheses), but these limitations are noted explicitly as taught by a secondary/new reference whenever a secondary/new reference has been used.
Examiner notes that, for brevity in this rejection, the motivation statement has not been repeated herein every time a secondary reference has been used.
With respect to Claim 1, Sakaue teaches ---
1. A method for determining a settlement amount for a life insurance policy, the method comprising:
(a) receiving [[at least one document that is]] (a plurality of documents) associated with a life insurance policy;
(see at least: Sakaue Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0018]--[0023]; and paras [0019] and [0022] for ‘life settlement policy based on an amount of an insurance carried by the/ an insured’; and paras [0168], [0179] & [0238] for market price of life settlement policy; and paras [0164]--[0165] for life insurance; and para [0343] for scoring that may be equivalent of claimed ‘an/ the indication’; and paras [0212]--[0214] for life settlement policy amount/ transfer amount; and paras [0159]--[0238]; and para [0353] about {“The creation of statement of account (operation report) for purchaser DB includes an operation report of a financial commodity of a life settlement policy and a document of a calculating formula for an account.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a settlement amount’)
Sakaue teaches as disclosed above, but it may not explicitly teach about ‘a plurality of documents’. However, Beres teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Beres Abstract and Brief Summary of the Invention in paras [0010]-[0015]; and para [0008] for ‘many potentially different documents’; and para [0030] for ‘many different document types’ and ‘multiple versions of each document type’; and para [0076] for ‘different document types are processed differently through the data extraction process’; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a plurality of documents’)
It would have been obvious to have an ordinary person of skill in the art at the of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakaue with those of Beres to provide a mechanism/service to make it possible for sharing life insurance policy's settlement based on estimated remaining years of life of the insured and a score, grade, rating or exceptions list indicating the quality of the title (insurance policy) as it relate to the marketability of the property (asset) it represents.
Sakaue and Beres teach ---
(b) assigning a respective value to each received document, in which the value indicates a level of importance;
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above; and para [0039] about {“In some embodiments, the abstract (or other output) may include a list of documents and a relevance score for each document. The score may be generated using any of a number of scoring algorithms. For example, the score may be based on a number of comparisons between the document being scored and a source document or group of documents. The more closely the data on the document match that on other documents or the data used to initiate the search, the higher the score and vice versa. The score may be based, at least in part, on the number of ways a document is located (e.g., name search, grantor search, address search, legal description search, and the like). The more searches that return a document, the more likely the document is to be relevant and the higher the score. The score may be weighted to favor data elements of greater significance. Many such examples are possible.”}; and para [0140] about {“…… For example, the user may desire a document list, a title abstract, a title policy, and/or the like. Additionally, the user may desire to have a relevance associated with each document and may desire a marketability score or grade for a parcel. Once all the fields are complete, the user may submit the request by selecting the search button.”}; and para [0142] about {“…. The list may include a relevance score for each document as previously described. The list may include hyperlinks or buttons for requesting more detailed information about the identified documents, including an image of the document. Many other examples are possible.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a respective value to each received document’ and ‘a level of importance’ per BRI rules)
Examiner notes that Beres teaches about “relevance score” that is a synonym for ‘a level of importance’.
Sakaue and Beres teach ---
(c) determining a summation of [[each]] the received [[document(s)]] documents;
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above; and para [0008] about {“Yet another barrier to creating an electronic searching system is the vast variety of documents used in different jurisdictions. Different states have different legal requirements and different customers, leading to different deeds, mortgages and the like. Further, even within a common jurisdiction, different title companies and different lenders use different documents. This reality makes it difficult to efficiently extract data from so many potentially different documents.”}; & para [0030] about {“… Some embodiments of the invention relate to systems and methods for efficiently mapping various documents to a standard document set. Any given county or recording entity records many different document types (mortgages, deeds, releases, liens, etc.) and multiple versions of each document type. Some embodiments of the present invention classify recording entity documents into a finite set of document types. These document types map to a pre-determined set of document types that are pre-configured for data extraction. …”}; and para [0038] about {“…… The documents correspond to specific recorded property records having potentially-relevant property data. Thus, in these embodiments, the automated searching process resembles the process a searcher might perform manually: the process identifies documents having data related to a property and evaluates the data to determine if the document is relevant to issuing a policy on the property. Irrelevant documents are ignored, and the data on relevant documents are summarized in an abstract from which an underwriter may generate a commitment.”}; and para [0055] about {“At block 210, potentially relevant documents are located. ……Whether a document is relevant may be based on the type of search the user requested. The search may use one or more indexes created at block 206 to improve the efficiency of the search. With respect to some embodiments, searches may locate potentially relevant documents in multiple ways, for example, using the grantor, the legal description, the address, and/or the like. As documents are located, additional searches may be performed using data from these documents. Thus, a document may be identified as potentially relevant based on more than one data element. This helps to lessen the possibility that a relevant document will not be located due to typographical errors or other mistakes present on the recorded document.”}; and para [0076] about {“Once a permanent document type is assigned, the document is processed through the data extraction process. The data extraction process may include, for example, the operations described previously at blocks 408 and 410 of FIG. 4A. In some embodiments, however, different document types are processed differently through the data extraction process. ……”}; and para [0143] about {“FIG. 6C illustrates an exemplary document summary screen according to an embodiment of the invention. The document summary screen includes relevant information from a selected document.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a summation of the received documents’)
Sakaue and Beres teach ---
(d) determining an indication for the life insurance policy, in which the indication is based on the summation of the received documents, and at least one of the values, in which the indication affects the settlement amount ; and
(e) displaying the indication.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a summation of the received documents’; and paras [0039]--[0040], [0054], [0108]--[0111], [0134]--[0136] & [0140]--[0145] for their teachings of relevance score/ grade/ rating that are synonyms for claimed ‘an/ the indication’, that includes description of at least para [0039] about {“In some embodiments, the abstract (or other output) may include a list of documents and a relevance score for each document. The score may be generated using any of a number of scoring algorithms. For example, the score may be based on a number of comparisons between the document being scored and a source document or group of documents. The more closely the data on the document match that on other documents or the data used to initiate the search, the higher the score and vice versa. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a/the indication’)
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Sakaue in view of Beres as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 1 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 2, Sakaue and Beres teach ---
2. (New) The method of claim 1 further comprising:
transmitting a request to authenticate at least one received document; and
receiving an authentication of the at least one received document.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’; and para [0014] about {“Optionally, the method may include adding auditing information associated with the first document process to the context and/or processing data element(s) through a verification process. …”}; and para [0073] about {“At block 434, an attempt is made to verify the document type. …”}; and para [0090] about {“Once the document has reached the output state, the outputs produced from the document processing states (e.g., data elements and attributes) may be verified in block 466. ……… It should be appreciated that other embodiments may include performing additional or alternative verification processes before a document completes a processing state.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a request to authenticate at least one received document’ and ‘an authentication of the at least one received document’)
With respect to Claim 3, Sakaue and Beres teach ---
3. (New) The method of claim 1 in which assigning the respective value of each received document comprises determining the value based on a decision tree.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’; and para [0098] about {“…FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing a schematic procedures of the operation.…; and para [0415] about {“… incorporate the divided security (stock) into financial commodities of various schemes or distribute the divided security (stock) to a plurality of financial commodities so as to be operated automatically. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a decision tree’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’)
With respect to Claim 4, Sakaue and Beres teach ---
4. (New) The method of claim 1 in which displaying the indication comprises displaying a color that is based on the indication.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’; and para [0220] about {“A creditworthiness of each purchaser that can be known from the rank (i.e., a rank indicated by a color) and the number of points of the purchaser. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘displaying a color that is based on the indication’)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’)
With respect to Claim 6, Sakaue and Beres teach ---
6. (New) The method of claim 4 in which the color corresponds to a quantity of documents received.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’ and ‘displaying a color that is based on the indication’)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’; and para [0030] for ‘many different document types’ and ‘multiple versions of each document type’ that are the same as claimed ‘a quantity of documents received’)
7. (New) The method of claim 4 in which the color corresponds to a marketability of the life insurance policy.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’ and ‘displaying a color that is based on the indication’; and para [0243] for ‘nurturing the future market of the viatical and life settlement policy’ and ‘a very transparent and sound market’ that are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘the color corresponds to a marketability of the life insurance policy’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’)
8. (New) The method of claim 1 further comprising storing the received documents, the determined value, and the indication into a database that comprises policy information for a plurality of available life insurance policies.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’ and ‘displaying a color that is based on the indication’; and para [0171], [0245]-[0246] & [0248]-[0249] for ‘life settlement policy database 25’; and para [0171] about {“…… contents of a contracted insurance, an agreement of a policy, a rank of an insurance company and various types of information of the insurance company …”}; and para [0245] about {“……contents of a policy including insurance company information and an insurance amount, a estimated remaining life, a bidder ID, a successful bidder ID and a proxy keeper ID added by the auction postprocessing means 52 …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a database that comprises policy information for a plurality of available life insurance policies’)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’)
10. (New) The method of claim 1 in which a purchaser of the life insurance policy assumes payment of the life insurance policy until death of an insured.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’ and ‘displaying a color that is based on the indication’; and para [0248] about {“The automatic settlement means 54 receives information about a death of the insured (that is, information about when and by a decease of what name the insured died), a health condition or a medical fee (medical report) sent from a health manager (e.g., a hospital) periodically (e.g., at every 3 months or every month). …”}; and paras [0419] and [0423] about {“…… change in legal conditions of payment of insurance money by an insurance company at the time of death of a patient …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘until death of an insured’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’)
Dependent Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Sakaue in view of Beres as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2023/ 0252558 filed by Van Os et al. (hereinafter “Van Os”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 5, Sakaue and Beres teach ---
5. (New) The method of claim 4 in which displaying a color comprises assigning a respective color based on each indication, in which a first color corresponds to a first indication and (a second color corresponds to a second indication), in which the first indication and the second indication are different.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’ and ‘displaying a color that is based on the indication’)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’)
Sakaue and Beres teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly teach about ‘a second color corresponds to a second indication’. However, Van Os teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Van Os Abstract and Brief Summary in paras [0004]-[0077]; and para [0394] for ‘a second color is used to indicate a second type of data’; and para [0449] for ‘the bar graph includes a second color different from the first color indicating a second type of transfer’; and para [0682] for ‘the position of selection indicator 1150 with a second visual characteristic (e.g., a second color, such as yellow)’; and paras [0774]-[0775] about {“…… in a clockwise direction along the user interface element, the second indicator), the electronic device displays (2132), in the first portion and a second portion of the path (e.g., more than the first portion, and including the selection indicator), visual feedback with a second color different from the first color. …”}; and paras [0776]-[0777] about {“…… near the second indicator (e.g., is near the first indicator), the electronic device (e.g., 100) displays (2136) (e.g., a gradual, continuous) a transition of the visual feedback from the first color to the second color.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a second color corresponds to a second indication’)
It would have been obvious to have an ordinary person of skill in the art at the of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakaue and Beres with those of Van Os to provide a mechanism/service to make it possible for sharing life insurance policy's settlement based on estimated remaining years of life of the insured and a score, grade, rating or exceptions list indicating the quality of the title (insurance policy) as it relate to the marketability of the property (asset) it represents, and to utilize electronic devices to manage accounts provisioned on the electronic device, and various features of an account can be controlled, performed, or managed using an electronic device (see para [0003] of Van Os).
Dependent Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Sakaue in view of Beres as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-8 & 10 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2005/ 0192849 filed by Spalding, Jr., Philip F. (hereinafter “Spalding”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 9, Sakaue and Beres teach ---
9. (New) The method of claim 8 further comprising:
receiving at least one search criterion from a purchaser;
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’ and ‘displaying a color that is based on the indication’)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’)
Sakaue and Beres teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly teach about ‘at least one search criterion from a purchaser’. However, Spalding teaches it explicitly.
(see at least: Spalding Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0007]-[0012]; and para [0016] about {“ FIG. 4 is a "buy a policy" page, which can be selected from the screen of FIG. 3 and which allows a prospective buyer to search for policies according to selected criteria.”}; and para [0034] about {“The "buy a policy" page provides search criteria for the potential buyer.……
Life expectancy as a search criterion will be available to search and find those policies where a life expectancy appraisal has been made by the system. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘at least one search criterion from a purchaser’)
It would have been obvious to have an ordinary person of skill in the art at the of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakaue and Beres with those of Spalding to provide a mechanism/service to make it possible for sharing life insurance policy's settlement based on estimated remaining years of life of the insured and a score, grade, rating or exceptions list indicating the quality of the title (insurance policy) as it relate to the marketability of the property (asset) it represents, and to fulfill a need for an efficient market for life settlement and viatical settlement transactions, a market which policy owners can enter with a fair degree of confidence that they will be obtaining a good and competitive value for their policies (see para [0006] of Spalding).
Sakaue, Beres and Spalding teach ---
searching the database for at least one life insurance policy that matches the at least one search criterion;
retrieving the at least one life insurance policy that matches the at least one search criterion; and
displaying the at least one retrieved life insurance policy.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’ and ‘displaying a color that is based on the indication’)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’)
(see at least: Spalding ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘at least one search criterion from a purchaser’; and para [0037] about {“If, rather than using the "browse all" link 70 in FIG. 4, the user has first entered some or all of the search criteria from the list in FIG. 4, then only those policies that fit the criteria selected will be displayed. …… If the potential buyer selects a policy for purchase, the buyer can make a bid as indicated at 84. …… the website and the system of the invention will notify buyers and sellers that all sales are subject to verification by the buyer with regard to the information provided on the website. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above)
With respect to Claim 11, Sakaue, Beres and Spalding teach ---
11. (New) The method of claim 1 in which a purchaser of the insurance policy is listed as a beneficiary of the life insurance policy in exchange for payment of the settlement amount to an insured.
(see at least: Sakaue ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a settlement amount’ and ‘displaying a color that is based on the indication’)
(see at least: Beres ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/the indication’ and ‘a respective value to each received document’)
(see at least: Spalding ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘at least one search criterion from a purchaser’; and para [0002] about {“…… AIDS victims facing inevitable and proximate death were offered cash for the transfer of their life insurance policies with beneficiary and ownership rights transferring to the buyer. The buyer would then make remaining premiums (if necessary) until the death of the insured. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘listed as a beneficiary’)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 17 NOVEMBER 2025 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-13 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-13 has been maintained as described above. Additionally, Examiner notes that all of previous Drawings Objections have been withdrawn as noted above. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-13, as described above, is being maintained herein with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks by adding new citations/paras from already used references that have been added in response to the Applicant’s latest claim amendments (of 11/17/2025).
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 1-13 under 35 USC 103 have been considered, but they are moot in view of the new citations from previously used references plus new ground/s of rejection (Van Os and Spalding references), which was necessitated by the Applicant's ‘amendments to the claims’ and/or arguments. See MPEP §706.07(a).
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 11/17/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s latest arguments of 11/17/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 that these claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong Two, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea --- see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 11/17/2025 analogy to BASCOM vs AT&T court case. In that case, the claimed invention is able to provide individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communication networks. …recite a system for filtering Internet content. The claimed filtering system is located on a remote ISP server that associates each network account with (1) one or more filtering schemes and (2) at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, thereby allowing individual network accounts to customize the filtering of Internet traffic associated with the account. For example, one filtering scheme could be “a word-screening type filtering scheme” and one set of filtering elements (from a plurality of sets) could be a “master list [] of disallowed words or phrases together with [an] individual [list of] words, phrases or rules.” Id. at 4:30-35. The instant application is not related to an improvement in technology as in BASCOM, but it rather uses the computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
In the instant application, the methods claims do not even recite a computer or hardware or software or any type of network to perform the functions of the process claim; nor is a display recited where the indications are displayed. There is no additional limitations where the hardware or software was specifically improved to conduct the functions, or integrated in a meaningful way, rather, this is purely claiming the business practice of the process of offering insurance policies for sale and purchase. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Please Note that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application that form a part of the body of prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/fax phone number for the organization, where this application or proceeding is assigned, is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights