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 the Application
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 21-26, and 28-32 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 01-November-2024. No priority has been claimed in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of the effective filing date as the priority date.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05-March-2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 16-September-2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 21-26, and 28-32 are 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. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Mental Processes and/or Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claim 1, the claim recites “A [process of] creation of ad hoc certificates of insurance, the [process] comprising:
one or more first [booklet] to store a knowledge ontology comprising semantically linked relationships between a plurality of insurance policy attributes and a plurality of fields within at least one certificate of insurance template;
one or more second [booklet] to store semantically linked high-dimensional vector representations of portions of each insurance policy document of a set of insurance policy documents, wherein the semantically linked high-dimensional vector representations comprise a plurality of insurance policy attribute values corresponding to at least a subset of the plurality of insurance policy attributes;
one or more third [booklet] to store at least one large language model (LLM) tuned to assess completeness and accuracy of a subset of a plurality of insurance policy attribute values to be used for certificate of insurance generation; and
[people] to
identify, … availability of an email,
collect, from the email, an email data set comprising a metadata portion including a subject line and a sender identifier, and a body text portion,
identify, within the email data set, a plurality of certificate of insurance parameters detailing a request for a certificate of insurance, wherein
the plurality of certificate of insurance parameters comprises information identifying a requesting party and one or more of a policy number, a policy holder name, a policy holder contact information, or a type of insurance policy,
apply a business relationship-directed semantic ontology comprising corporate relationships to enrich details regarding the policy holder contact information and the requesting party,
upon identifying a discrepancy between one or both of the policy holder contact information or the requesting party and the business relationship-directed semantic business ontology, present, at a first [paper], any inconsistent information to obtain correction,
using the email data set including the enriched policy holder contact information, identify at least one unstructured insurance policy document,
apply at least one natural language processing technique to extract, from each unstructured insurance policy document of the at least one unstructured insurance policy document, a set of insurance policy attribute values corresponding to at least a portion of the plurality of insurance policy attributes,
classify, by at least one … classification model, each respective insurance policy attribute value according to a classification schema organizing the plurality of insurance policy attributes of the knowledge ontology,
convert each respective insurance policy attribute value of the set of insurance policy attribute values to a numeric format arranged in a respective high-dimensional vector form of a set of high-dimensional vector forms,
store the high-dimensional vector forms of the set of insurance policy attribute values to the one or more second [booklet],
apply a respective attribute tag of a plurality of attribute tags to each high- dimensional vector form of the set of high-dimensional vector forms according to the classifying, wherein
at least a portion of the plurality of attribute tags reference a respective data entry field of a plurality of data entry fields of a certificate of insurance template of the at least one certificate of insurance template,
prepare, for presentation on a display …, a second [paper] for reviewing each respective insurance policy attribute value of the set of insurance policy attribute values and a descriptor corresponding to the attribute tag applied to the respective insurance policy attribute value, wherein the descriptor corresponds to a label of an information field of the topic certificate of insurance template,
receive, responsive to presenting the second [paper], one or more modified insurance policy attribute values,
using the one or more modified insurance policy attribute values,
update [data] of the at least one … classification model, and
update the set of high-dimensional vector forms according to the one or more modified insurance policy attribute values,
cluster the set of high-dimensional vector forms into semantic relationships linked within the one or more second non-transitory storage devices,
responsive to an indication of acceptance, received via the first interactive [display board], of the set of insurance policy attribute values, analyze, by the at least one LLM, a plurality of vector representations stored to the one or more second [booklet] to identify a set of insurance policy attribute values of the plurality of insurance policy attribute values relevant to the request for the certificate of insurance, wherein
the plurality of insurance policy attribute values comprises one or more values corresponding to one or more of an effective date, an expiration date, a limit, or a deductible, and
the plurality of vector representations comprise at least a portion of the set of vector representations of the at least one unstructured insurance policy document,
match each data entry field of a plurality of data entry fields of the topic certificate of insurance template with a respective one or more insurance policy attribute values of the set of insurance policy attribute values or one or more certificate of insurance parameters of the plurality of certificate of insurance parameters according to a set of attribute tags of the plurality of attribute tags corresponding to a set of vector representations of the plurality of vector representations used in identifying the set of insurance policy attribute values, wherein
the matching is performed in accordance with the knowledge ontology,
present, on the display …, a third [paper] for reviewing and revising a [physical] rendition of the certificate of insurance, the [physical] rendition of the certificate of insurance comprising
a) based on the matching of each data entry field with the respective one or more insurance policy attribute values, a plurality of filled data fields comprising values of at least a portion of the plurality of insurance policy attributes and at least a portion of the plurality of certificate of insurance parameters, and
b) at least one edit control configured to enable editing of at least a portion of the plurality of filled data fields,
receive, responsive to presenting the third [paper], one or more modified values, each modified value corresponding to a different insurance policy attribute of the plurality of insurance policy attributes, and
using the one or more modified values, convert the values of the plurality of filled data fields into at least one formal COI certificate document.”
The limitation of the claim recited above, considering the claim without the additional elements (e.g. system, device, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), recites Mental Processes. The method recited above is a process of identifying information, storing information, accessing stored information, analyzing by utilizing the stored information (e.g. apply input/output data to a model), classifying, converting, and applying information, matching information, editing information, and presenting the results. These steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, which is a mental process, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.04(III)(A):
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
• a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).”
Although the claim may recite using a computer for the claimed process, performing a mental process on a generic computer still recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(C):
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Additionally, the claim, under BRI, recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. The claim limitations involve the field of insurance wherein the stored data and the steps of data analysis are associated with insurance policies, wherein the goal of the invention is to provide an automated system to analyze and certify insurance documents, which may be fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A):
“Another example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bancorp Services., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The fundamental economic practice at issue in Bancorp pertained to insurance. The patentee in Bancorp claimed methods and systems for managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, which comprised steps including generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities, calculating surrender value protected investment credits for the life insurance policy; determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities for the current day; and calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day. 687 F.3d at 1270-71, 103 USPQ2d at 1427. The court described the claims as an "attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [managing a stable value protected life insurance policy] and then instruct the use of well-known [calculations] to help establish some of the inputs into the equation." 687 F.3d at 1278, 103 USPQ2d at 1433 (alterations in original) (citing Bilski)”
and also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B):
“Other examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts include:
i. managing a stable value protected life insurance policy via performing calculations, Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012); and
ii. processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy (i.e., an agreement in the form of a contract), Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1338-39, 108 USPQ2d 1173, 1175-76 (Fed. Cir. 2013).”
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “system”, “non-transitory storage devices”, “processing circuitry”, “widget”, “bot”, “extension to an email program”, “remote computing device”, and “interactive graphical user interface” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These additional elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed functions of storing data, identifying data, accessing data, converting data, analyzing data, applying data, matching data, modifying data, and presenting data, as disclosed by Specification:
[0105] “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus and/or distributed processing systems having processing circuitry, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/operations specified in the illustrations”;
[0109] “Various aspects of the embodiments disclosed herein are performed on one or more computing devices, such as a laptop computer, tablet computer, mobile phone or other handheld computing device, or one or more servers”; and
[0113] “The computing device, in some embodiments, further includes a display controller for interfacing with a display, such as a built-in display or LCD monitor. A general purpose I/O interface of the computing device may interface with a keyboard, a hand-manipulated movement tracked I/O device (e.g., mouse, virtual reality glove, trackball, joystick, etc.), and/or touch screen panel or touch pad on or separate from the display”.
These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. For example, mere instructions to display information on a GUI does not improve computer functionality, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) example that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: “Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)”. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, determine, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim also recite additional elements and steps associated with “large language model (LLM)”, “natural language processing technique”, “semantic ontology”, and “trained classification model”, such as applying data, classifying data, converting data, storing data, clustering data, and analyzing data. These elements are still part of the abstract idea, which are a stored model or stored technique utilized in the steps of data analysis, merely applied as a black-box application, which can be performed in the human mind or by a human with pen and paper as discussed above, wherein the additional element of a generic computer system is merely applied to implement the abstract idea. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claim lacks sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “wherein identifying the plurality of certificate of insurance parameters comprises applying at least one natural language processing technique to extract at least a portion of the certificate of insurance parameters from the email data set.” The claim provides further steps of identifying data (e.g. natural language processing technique), which is still part of the abstract idea (e.g. apply technique to identify and extract information), wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the semantically linked high-dimensional vector representations are stored within a semantic graph structure.” The claim provides further steps of storing data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one LLM matches each data entry field of the topic certificate of insurance template with the respective one or more attribute values.” The claim provides further details regarding the LLM, which is still part of the abstract idea (e.g. use model to match information), wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the digital rendition of the certificate of insurance comprises a thumbnail image of each page of the certificate of insurance.” The claim provides additional elements (e.g. thumbnail image), which is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. provide an image), wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 10 recites “further comprising one or more fourth non-transitory storage devices configured to store at least one machine learning model configured to recognize the plurality of insurance policy attributes, wherein the at least one natural language processing technique formats content of the at least one unstructured insurance policy document for processing by the at least one machine learning model; and the at least one machine learning model extracts the set of insurance policy attribute values.” The claim provides additional elements (fourth non-transitory storage device), which is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. store data), wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 11 recites “wherein clustering the set of high-dimensional vector forms of the set of insurance policy attribute values comprises clustering the high-dimensional vector forms into semantic relationships linked within a knowledge graph, wherein the knowledge graph is stored to the one or more second non-transitory storage devices.” The claim provides details of storing data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising a second knowledge ontology comprising semantically linked relationships between a plurality of business entities, wherein: the plurality of business entities comprises a plurality of insurance policy holders; and the processing circuitry is further configured to analyze at least a portion of the plurality of certificate of insurance parameters in view of the second knowledge ontology to enhance entity details related to at least one of the policy holder name, the policy holder contact information, a certificate holder, or an insurance carrier.” The claim provides further details regarding a second knowledge ontology, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 13 recites “wherein at least a portion of the processing circuitry comprises hardware logic hard-coded or programmed into the portion of the processing circuitry.” The claim provides further details regarding the additional element (e.g. processing circuitry comprising hardware logic), which is still a generic computer system merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the at least one LLM is fined-tuned using a respective corpus of documents comprising insurance policies and certificates of insurance.” The claim provides further details regarding the model and the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the at least one LLM comprises a plurality of LLMs, each document of the respective corpus of documents used to fine-tune a respective LLM of the plurality of LLMs being truth labeled according to a different business ontology of a set of business ontologies.” The claim provides further details regarding the model and the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the set of business ontologies comprises at least one of a customer services ontology, an insurance policy ontology, or a certificate of insurance formatting ontology.” The claim provides further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 24 recites “wherein analyzing, by the at least one LLM, the plurality of vector representations comprises prompting the at least one LLM to apply a portion of the plurality of high-dimensional vector forms and the knowledge ontology to collect and provide a set of field values for populating a plurality of attribute fields of the topic certificate of insurance template.” The claim provides further steps of applying the model for analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 25 recites “wherein identifying the at least one unstructured insurance policy document comprises identifying at least one attachment to the email as the at least one unstructured insurance policy document.” The claim provides further details regarding identifying data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to analyze the email data set to identify the topic certificate of insurance template from the at least one certificate of insurance template, wherein the at least one certificate of insurance template comprises a plurality of certificate insurance templates.” The claim provides further steps of analyzing data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 28 recites “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: identify, based at least in part on the plurality of certificate of insurance parameters, the topic certificate of insurance template from the at least one certificate of insurance template, wherein the at least one certificate of insurance template comprises a plurality of certificate insurance templates.” The claim provides steps of receiving and identifying data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 29 recites “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify, based at least in part on one or more of a geographic region, a type of insurance, an industry, or a profession identified in the request for the certificate of insurance, the topic certificate of insurance template.” The claim provides further steps of identifying data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 30 recites “wherein: the processing circuitry is configured to, prior to identifying the plurality of certificate of insurance parameters, review at least the metadata portion of the email to determine whether the email is related to a certificate of insurance request; and the plurality of certificate of insurance parameters are identified responsive to determining the email is related to the certificate of insurance request.” The claim provides further steps of identifying data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 31 recites “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, prior identifying the plurality of certificate of insurance parameters: convert each attachment of at least one attachment to the email to plain text; and store the plain text of the at least one attachment, the body text portion, and the metadata portion to a non-transitory storage region as the email data set.” The claim provides further steps of converting data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the at least one attachment comprises the topic certificate of insurance template.” The claim provides details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, wherein mere apply it is not indicative of integration into a practical application as similarly discussed above with its parent claim.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 21-26, and 28-32, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claim, each claim recites using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 21-26, and 28-32 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9 to 12, filed 05-March-2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends, see pages 10 to 11, that the amended claims recite a particular concrete technical solution to the problem of the manual process for generating ad hoc certificates of insurance being highly manual, time-consuming, and error prone. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Considering the claim without the additional elements, the claim recites an abstract idea under mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activities (e.g. insurance data gathering, analysis, and display). The additional elements are mere generic computer components merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. The three separate interactive graphic user interfaces are merely used to display information, receive inputs to edit information, and display the modified data. As discussed above, mere instructions to display information on a GUI does not improve computer functionality, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) example that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: “Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)”. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant contends, see pages 11 to 12, that the amended claim is significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the claim, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. In view of the Specification, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights