DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 action is in reply to the remarks/arguments filed for Application 18/905,877 filed on 21 April 2026.
Claims 8-9 and 11 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 12-14, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-20 are currently pending, and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 17 March 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
1. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, representative method claim 19 is directed towards facilitating the processing and analysis of unstructured data items related to protection products (e.g., insurance). Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of using rules and/or instructions to implement an economic/commercial activity (e.g., insurance management) comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving data associated with a product, monitoring the data source (data feed), processing the data (converting/extracting contextual, attribute information), applying the data (inputting, outputting a result), grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions).
Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device – nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping, in step 2A, prong one. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites:
“receiving, using one or more processors and one or more computer-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon executable by the one or more processors, a plurality of unstructured data items associated with a plurality of protection records, the plurality of protection records corresponding to at least one protection product;
monitoring, using the one or more processors and using at least one data feed, multimedia unstructured data items associated with at least one protection record of the plurality of protection records, the at least one protection record corresponding to the at least one protection product;
converting, using the one or more processors, the multimedia unstructured data items into unstructured data items of the plurality of unstructured data items;
generating, using the one or more processors, a prompt based upon the plurality of unstructured data items for one or more AI models, wherein generating the prompt comprises extracting one or more correlations between contextual information and attribute information of the plurality of unstructured data items, wherein the contextual information corresponds to circumstantial factors and environmental factors of at least one of the plurality of protection records, and the attribute information corresponds to attributes and properties of at least one of the plurality of protection records;
applying, using the one or more processors, the plurality of unstructured data items and the prompt as input to the one or more AI models to cause the one or more AI models to generate an output regarding at least one of an occurrence prediction or a pattern identification within the plurality of unstructured data items, wherein the output comprises an update to at least one protection parameter of the at least one protection product;
determining, using the one or more processors, at least one action to apply the update to the at least one protection parameter of the at least one protection product, wherein the at least one action comprises a response to the plurality of unstructured data items and the prompt, the response causing (i) a tuning of a probability metric of the occurrence prediction to modify a probability assigned to a future occurrence of a future protection record or ii a tuning of a frequency metric of the pattern identification to modify a frequency assigned to a recurrence within a subset of the plurality of protection records.”
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
2. Applicant further argues that the claims recite a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “processor”, “computer readable-storage media”, “artificial intelligence (AI) model”, represent the use of a computer as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions to implement an economic/commercial activity (e.g., insurance management) comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving data associated with a product, monitoring the data source (data feed), processing the data (converting/extracting contextual, attribute information), applying the data (inputting, outputting a result). Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
3. Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions to implement an economic/commercial activity (e.g., insurance management) comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving data associated with a product, monitoring the data source (data feed), processing the data (converting/extracting contextual, attribute information), applying the data (inputting, outputting a result) using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
B. Claim Rejections - 3S U.S.C. § 103:
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batra et al., US 2023/0315996 A1 (“Batra”), in view of Mueller, US 2018/0114142 A1 (“Mueller”), further in view of Arriaga, US 2025/0054068 A1 (“Arriaga”).
Applicant’s arguments with regard to distinct differences between limitations of the instant application and the cited references have been considered and found persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of the above claims on the grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn.
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 1-7, 10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, representative method claim 19 is directed towards facilitating the processing and analysis of unstructured data items related to protection products (e.g., insurance). Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of using rules and/or instructions to implement an economic/commercial activity (e.g., insurance management) comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving data associated with a product, monitoring the data source (data feed), processing the data (converting/extracting contextual, attribute information), applying the data (inputting, outputting a result), grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions).
Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device – nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human grouping, in step 2A, prong one. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites:
“receiving, using one or more processors and one or more computer-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon executable by the one or more processors, a plurality of unstructured data items associated with a plurality of protection records, the plurality of protection records corresponding to at least one protection product;
monitoring, using the one or more processors and using at least one data feed, multimedia unstructured data items associated with at least one protection record of the plurality of protection records, the at least one protection record corresponding to the at least one protection product;
converting, using the one or more processors, the multimedia unstructured data items into unstructured data items of the plurality of unstructured data items;
generating, using the one or more processors, a prompt based upon the plurality of unstructured data items for one or more AI models, wherein generating the prompt comprises extracting one or more correlations between contextual information and attribute information of the plurality of unstructured data items, wherein the contextual information corresponds to circumstantial factors and environmental factors of at least one of the plurality of protection records, and the attribute information corresponds to attributes and properties of at least one of the plurality of protection records;
applying, using the one or more processors, the plurality of unstructured data items and the prompt as input to the one or more AI models to cause the one or more AI models to generate an output regarding at least one of an occurrence prediction or a pattern identification within the plurality of unstructured data items, wherein the output comprises an update to at least one protection parameter of the at least one protection product;
determining, using the one or more processors, at least one action to apply the update to the at least one protection parameter of the at least one protection product, wherein the at least one action comprises a response to the plurality of unstructured data items and the prompt, the response causing (i) a tuning of a probability metric of the occurrence prediction to modify a probability assigned to a future occurrence of a future protection record or ii a tuning of a frequency metric of the pattern identification to modify a frequency assigned to a recurrence within a subset of the plurality of protection records.”
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “processor”, “computer readable-storage media”, “artificial intelligence (AI) model”, represent the use of a computer as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions to implement an economic/commercial activity (e.g., insurance management) comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving data associated with a product, monitoring the data source (data feed), processing the data (converting/extracting contextual, attribute information), applying the data (inputting, outputting a result).
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions to implement an economic/commercial activity (e.g., insurance management) comprising the field-of-use steps of receiving data associated with a product, monitoring the data source (data feed), processing the data (converting/extracting contextual, attribute information), applying the data (inputting, outputting a result) using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 19 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 1 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 19 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 19 applies to claim 1 accordingly.
Independent claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 19 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 13 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 19 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 19 applies to claim 13 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deshpande et al., (US 2016/0085852 A1) discloses supplementing structured information about entities with information from unstructured data sources. A method for supplementing structured information within a data system for entities based on unstructured data analyzes a document with unstructured data and extracts attribute values from the unstructured data for one or more entities of the data system. Entity records with structured information are retrieved from the data system based on the extracted attribute values. Entity references for corresponding entities of the data system are constructed based on a comparison of the retrieved entity records and the extracted attribute values. The entity references are linked to the corresponding entities within the data system, with the entity references including extracted attributes from the unstructured data for corresponding linked entities.
Sutrich et al., (US 2024/0037127 A1) discloses structured and unstructured data comparison with complex and variable natural language text. Described herein are techniques that may be implemented by a computerized system for parsing contracts using natural language understanding and/or textual analytics rules and determining whether a party to a contract is compliant with
insurance coverage identified by the contract. Some techniques described herein can create structured data from unstructured contract text describing insurance coverage that a party to a contract is required to hold. Some such techniques including comparing the structured data indicating required coverages (which was determined from the unstructured text) to other structured data indicating coverages held by a party, to determine whether the coverage held by the party satisfies the required coverages. In some embodiments, a system implementing these techniques output whether coverage is missing or otherwise insufficient, or whether the coverages held by a party satisfy required
coverages of the contract.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-20 are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights