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 .
Status of Application
This is a non-final rejection relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/933,394 which was filed on October 31, 2024. This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/787,134 which was filed on February 11, 2020, now U.S. Patent 12,165,210, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/742,858 which was filed on January 14, 2020, now abandoned. Claims 1 - 20 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement submitted by the applicant on January 13, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been reviewed.
Double Patenting Rejection
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 17 of U.S. Patent 12,165,210. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each. Claim 1 from the instant application and claim 1 of the ‘210 patent each recite: receiving, by a computing device, a request for a quote, wherein the request comprises a plurality of user inputs; translating, by one or more calculation components of the computing device, the plurality of user inputs into a plurality of rating factors; determining, by the one or more calculation components of the computing device, a rating factor value for each of the plurality of rating factors; storing, in a memory of the computing device, the rating factor value for each of the plurality of rating factors; calculating, by the one or more calculation components of the computing device, a plurality of partial rates based on at least one rating factor value; aggregating, by the one or more calculation components of the computing device, the plurality of partial rates into a final rate; and causing the computing device to display a response to the request for the quote, wherein the response comprises a breakdown including one or more of the plurality of rating factors used to calculate the final rate. The difference between the instant application and the ‘210 patent is that Claim 1 of the ‘210 patent, recites using an application programming interface to receive the user inputs, querying a look-up table to determine rating factor values and using microservices for the calculation components to retrieve the rating factor values. These additional elements serve to accomplish the same steps and simply include more specificity in how the steps are accomplished. These variations do not make the instant application patently distinct from the ‘210 patent.
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 are rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Class
Claims 1- 8 are directed to a method. Claims 9 - 14 are directed to a computing device. Claims 15 - 20 are directed to one or more non-transitory media storing instructions executed by one or more processors to perform steps. Therefore, on its face, each of the claims is directed to a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea
Claim 9 recites receive a request for a quote, wherein the request comprises a plurality of user inputs; translate the plurality of user inputs into a plurality of rating factors; determine a rating factor value for each of the plurality of rating factors; store the rating factor value for each of the plurality of rating factors; calculate a plurality of partial rates based on at least one rating factor value; aggregate the plurality of partial rates into a composite rate; and display a response to the request for the quote, wherein the response comprises a breakdown including one or more of the plurality of rating factors used to calculate the composite rate. Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of receiving a request for a quote, calculating partial rates based on rating factors, aggregating the partial rates into a composite rate and displaying a response to the request for a rate which is commercial interactions including business relations and fundamental economic practices falling under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity enumerated in MPEP 2601.04(a). Claims 1 and 15 recite the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
Claim 9 recites a computing device, one or more processors, memory storing instructions, a second memory and a computing device display. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not provide a technical improvement such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to technology or to a technical field. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not invoke a particular machine as our guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned, they do not transform matter as they only manipulate data which is not matter.
Step 2B – Significantly more
As set forth in the discussion in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claims 2, 10 and 16 (the breakdown further includes a corresponding impact to the final rate for each of the plurality of rating factors used to calculate the final rate), Claims 3, 11 and 17 (storing, in the memory of the computing device, at least one of the plurality of rating factors used to calculate the final rate as a persistent rating factor), Claims 4, 12 and 18 (the rating factor value is a number between 0 and 1), Claims 5, 13 and 19 (determining the rating factor value for each of the plurality of rating factors further comprises: querying a look-up table, using a first rating factor, to determine a first rating factor value), Claim 6 (the memory is one of a distributed cache or a database), Claims 7, 14 and 20 (translating the plurality of user inputs into the plurality of rating factors further comprises translating the plurality of rating factors into a standardized format for processing) and Claim 8 (the request is received via an application programming interface (API) proxy interface) contain additional elements (underlined above) that are recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or further define and merely add specificity to the abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims also fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea.
As such, Claims 1 - 20 are not patent eligible.
No Prior Art Rejection
A search of the prior art has not identified any references that teach, either alone or in combination, each of the claimed elements in Claims 1-20. Accordingly, there is no art rejection provided for Claims 1-20.
The closest prior art of record US 10,262,373 B2, Hayward et al., discloses a system and method for underwriting and rating insurance products using a programmed computer system to receive usage information of a vehicle within a geographic area or location, determine a target grid cell or a sequence of target grid cells bounded by latitude and longitude lines that encompass at least a portion of the geographic area where the vehicle was used, attain a set of data associated with the target grid cell(s), and calculate a location rating factor based on the usage information, target cell(s), and the set of data.
The closest prior art of record US 2014/0095214 A1, Mathe et al., discloses systems and methods of providing a platform for a driving performance application. The platform includes receiving data associated with driving performance of a driver, where the driver is associated with a client of the platform, analyzing the data to determine a measure of driving performance, and reporting the measure of driving performance to the client. The platform interfaces with the native systems of the client to provide an integrated insurance platform capable of implementing and managing a driving performance product, such as a usage-based insurance product.
The closest prior art of record US 2010/0010836 A1, Rosen et al., discloses methods and systems for a benchmark based comparison of an employee insurance plan of an organization to employee insurance plans from other organizations in a peer group. The present invention enables a user to enter details about an employee insurance plan of a first organization and allows the user to compare the insurance plan to a benchmark computed from data collected from a plurality of organizations in a peer group of the first organization. The comparison report does not identify the organizations from which data is collected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE PROIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/GEORGE N. PROIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694