DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on October 10, 2024. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined. The claim interpretation, the rejections and a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art are stated below.
Claim Interpretation
2. Claim 1 recites the limitations “receive GIS data” and “receive at least one of demographic data and engagement data”. It is not clear what the Applicants mean by the terms “GIS data” and “engagement data”.
Claim 5 recites “A system for optimizing user interaction for insurance enrollments, the system including the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1”. It is not clear if this claim is an independent claim or a dependent claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of analysis, the Examiner has interpreted the claim to be a dependent claim.
Similarly claim 6 recites the limitations “receiving GIS data” and “receiving at least one of demographic data and engagement data”. It is not clear what the Applicants mean by the terms “GIS data” and “engagement data”. Also, it is not clear if the steps of the claim are performed manually and or by a computer processor. Similar ambiguities are also present in the dependent claims. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a method of optimizing user interaction for insurance enrollments, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 6 is directed to a method (process).
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A method of optimizing user interaction for insurance enrollments, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving GIS data;
receiving at least one of demographic data and engagement data;
predicting, based on the received GIS data and the at least one of the demographic data and the engagement data, at least one of an enroller staffing and a communications strategy” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
“A method of optimizing user interaction for insurance enrollments” is a fundamental economic practice such as providing insurance. Predicting, based on the received GIS data and the at least one of the demographic data and the engagement data, at least one of an enroller staffing and a communications strategy is a form of fulfilling agreements. Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
That is, other than, a processor (not explicitly stated in claims 5 and 6) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a processor (not explicitly stated in claims 5 and 6) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-7 and 10 and associated descriptions in the Specification reveals that processor may be a generic processors suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The non-transitory computer-readable medium is a generic computer software suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Hence, claims 1, 5 and 6 are directed to an abstract idea.
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, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claims 1, 5 and 6 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, and 7-11, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claims 2 and 7, the steps “perform the following additional actions:
ranking the recommendations; and
outputting the ranked recommendations” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 3 and 8, the steps “perform the following actions:
receive the demographic data and the engagement data; and
predict the at least one of the enroller staffing and the communications strategy based on the received GIS data, the demographic data, and the engagement data;
ranking the communications recommendations; and
outputting the communications recommendations” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps further describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 4 and 9, the steps “perform the following actions:
receive the demographic data, the engagement data, and regional data; and
predict the at least one of the enroller staffing and the communications strategy based on the received GIS data, the demographic data, the engagement data, and the regional data;
ranking the communications recommendations; and
outputting the communications recommendations” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps further describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 10 and 11, the steps “wherein the step of predicting is performed by executing a machine learning regression model by a non-transitory computer-readable medium including program instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform the step of executing the machine learning regression model” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps further describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process. The additional element of a machine learning regression model is broadly interpreted to correspond to generic mathematical algorithm/software suitably programmed to perform the associated function. The additional element of the machine learning regression model, performs a traditional function recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-11 would be allowable, over prior art, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
The closest prior art of record, (McMahon Chantal et al. (US 2018/0272066 A1) and Mendell, Marcos A et al. (US Pub. 2023/0196471 A1)), considered individually or in combination, fail to teach the steps of “predicting, based on the received GIS data and the at least one of the demographic data and the engagement data, at least one of an enroller staffing and a communications strategy”. Page 3 of 13Appl. No.: 14/331,106For these reasons claims 1, 5 and 6 are deemed allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2-4, and 7-11 are allowable over prior art by virtue of dependency on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Hurliman; John et al. (US Pub. 2024/0338776 A1) discloses one or more processors to: (1) receive data from a plurality of data sources, the plurality of data sources including: smart home devices, a weather database, an insurance company, a real estate & property data company, artificial intelligence (AI) company, an electrical data company, a security company, and/or a property risk data company; (2) predict, based upon the received data from the plurality of data sources, that an event will occur that will damage an insured asset; and/or (3) initiate an action based upon the prediction that the event will occur.
(b) Yarish; Jeff et al. (US Pub. 2025/0094931 A1) discloses methods and means for improving open enrollment and new hire enrollment and registration in insurance products are provided, and more specifically, methods and means for improved, more efficient methods for communicating updates regarding enrollment details and their registration in insurance products are provided.
7. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
February 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights