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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the application filed on 12/03/2024.
Claims 1-20 were previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a system, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…stores information regarding a plurality of current users, each current user associated with a set of demographic data; and receives information from the user, the received information including at least one selection regarding one of the web links to one of the different interactive tools and user information regarding a user, identify that the user is similarly situated to one or more of the current users based on a comparison of the user information to the set of demographic data of the similarly situated current users, the selected interactive tool is executed based on the user information regarding the user and stored information regarding the similarly situated current users, and the content determined from the received user information and stored information of the similarly situated current users”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relation; i.e. receiving and processing the user information for demographic-based analysis) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions 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.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claim of a memory, a communication interface, a communication network, a user device, an interactive user interface, a display screen of a user device and a processor that are recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores… information; provides …an interface…; receives …information, the received information including at least one selection regarding one of the web links to one of the different interactive tools and user information regarding a user…; identify… that the user is similarly situated to one or more of the current users…; execute …the selected interactive tool in response to the at least one selection of the selected web link, wherein the selected interactive tool is executed …based on the user information…, and dynamically update …content…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does 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 or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the memory, the communication interface, the communication network, the user device, the interactive user interface, the display screen of the user device and the processor that are recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores… information; provides …an interface…; receives …information, the received information including at least one selection regarding one of the web links to one of the different interactive tools and user information regarding a user…; identify… that the user is similarly situated to one or more of the current users…; execute …the selected interactive tool in response to the at least one selection of the selected web link, wherein the selected interactive tool is executed …based on the user information…, and dynamically update …content…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 is rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 10. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 11-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1 and 10. Claims 2-9 and 11-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor and the interactive user interface included in the dependent claims 2-6, 13, 19 and 20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores… the received user information, …execute…instruction to determine …a deductible or a coverage amount for the user with the received user information, wherein the content includes the deductible or the coverage amount, respectively” (claim 2); “executes further instructions to filter… home data ...” (claim 3); “executes further instructions to dynamically update …the content…to display …the deductible or coverage amount associated with the filtered home data” (claim 4); “executes further instructions to identify…that the user is similarly situated to one or more of the currents users based on a comparison of a zip code of a property of the user to zip code data of properties of the similarly situated current users, respectively” (claim 5); “executes instructions to determine… a recommended deductible for the user, wherein the recommended deductible is determined based on a factor” (claim 6); “dynamically updating… the content …to display… the deductible or coverage amount associated with the filtered home data” (claim 13); “dynamically updating… the content …to display …a selected deductible from the received user information” (claim 19); and “comparing… the selected deductible to the recommended deductible based on the tolerance for risk for the user, and dynamically updating… the content …to display… the selected deductible and a result of the comparison” (claim 20), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor and the interactive user interface included in the dependent claims 2-6, 13, 19 and 20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores… the received user information, …execute…instruction to determine …a deductible or a coverage amount for the user with the received user information, wherein the content includes the deductible or the coverage amount, respectively” (claim 2); “executes further instructions to filter… home data ...” (claim 3); “executes further instructions to dynamically update …the content…to display …the deductible or coverage amount associated with the filtered home data” (claim 4); “executes further instructions to identify…that the user is similarly situated to one or more of the currents users based on a comparison of a zip code of a property of the user to zip code data of properties of the similarly situated current users, respectively” (claim 5); “executes instructions to determine… a recommended deductible for the user, wherein the recommended deductible is determined based on a factor” (claim 6); “dynamically updating… the content …to display… the deductible or coverage amount associated with the filtered home data” (claim 13); “dynamically updating… the content …to display …a selected deductible from the received user information” (claim 19); and “comparing… the selected deductible to the recommended deductible based on the tolerance for risk for the user, and dynamically updating… the content …to display… the selected deductible and a result of the comparison” (claim 20), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 10 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,549 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 17/345,132). Both claims 1 and 10 of the instant application and claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,549 are directed to a method and a system for providing interactive analytics of user demographics. However, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,549 also contains additional limitations not found in claims 1 and 10 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…to identify a set of damage events predicted for the user; and wherein the dynamically updated content within the interactive user interface includes the set of damage events predicted for the user”. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,549 are directed to a species of claims 1 and 10 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,549 so that the interactive analytics of user demographics would be provided more efficiently.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights