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 Application 19/009,655 filed on 3 January 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, representative method claim 1 is directed towards facilitating risk analysis related to selecting an insurance investment product for the purpose of providing individual liability coverage as well as realizing investment returns associated with the product. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing an existing commercial practice (e.g., sales activity – insurance coverage, investment planning) and/or concept in an automated manner, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial interactions; managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in prong one of step 2A.
Claim 1 recites:
“receiving a request for an individual insurance investment product from a user;
identifying a covered entity associated with the request;
selecting one or more investment options for the individual insurance investment product based on the request; and
in response to verifying that a funding amount has been satisfied, generating the individual insurance investment product for the covered entity, comprising investing the funding amount in the one or more investment options on behalf of the user”.
Claim 17 recites:
“providing a web-based user interface configured to receive user input data comprising insurance coverage parameters for an insured entity;
generating an individual insurance investment product based on the user input data, wherein the individual insurance investment product configured to allocate investment returns to the insured entity, based on executing at least one of (i) a product match machine learning model or (ii) an investment match machine learning model;
allocating funds of the individual insurance investment product to one or more selected investment options; and
recording ownership of the individual insurance investment product on a distributed ledger blockchain using a smart contract configured to ensure atomic transaction execution”.
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 prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as a “processors”, “web-based user interface”, “machine learning model”, “distributed ledger blockchain”, “smart contract”, represent the use of a computer-related devices 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 utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing an existing commercial practice (e.g., sales activity – insurance coverage, investment planning) and/or concept in an automated manner.
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 utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing an existing commercial practice (e.g., sales activity – insurance coverage, investment planning) and/or concept in an automated manner using computer-related technology (e.g., computer processor). 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, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Additionally, no computer processor device is recited to carry out the recited functionality of the invention. In this instance, it is not clear whether any of the instructions are in executable form and therefore there is no practical application.
As such, the claim is non-statutory because the body of the claim does not contain any limitations indicating the structure of the device and does not recite any machine or transformation (insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation either express or inherent) – no specific computer or processing device recited to carry out the claimed steps or execute computer code instructions is recited. See Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos (Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices).
Independent claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 9 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a computer readable medium (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 9 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 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.
The step(s) recited are a further refinement of 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), because it merely describes intermediate steps and/or rules/instructions of the process.
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.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berlin et al., US 9,928,552 B1 (“Berlin”) in view of Roll et al., US 10,713,728 B1 (“Roll”).
Re Claim 1: (Currently Amended) Berlin discloses a method comprising:
receiving a request for an individual insurance investment product from a user;
(C1 L51-64: “determining an objectively appropriate insurance investment product for a customer … the method includes inputting a set of customer data including at least certain customer criteria … and recommending an insurance product; C3 L32-34: “generating an
objectively based recommendation or proposal for an appropriate investment product is described …”; C3 L42-45: “an investment adviser representative may meet with a prospective customer and work with the customer to identify the customer's goals and objectives …”)
Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
identifying a covered entity associated with the request;
Roll makes this teaching in a related endeavor (FIG. 3 [405]: “create financial instruments for a particular affinity group”; C2 L64-67, C3 L1-7: “For a particular affinity group of insurance policies of a
particular risk level, a set of financial instruments may be created and offered to potential investors (which may be individuals, groups, companies, organizations, etc.) … where each of the financial
instruments is governed by a set of terms that define an agreement between an investor and the provider of the financial instrument, for example, when and how profits and losses are to be distributed or apportioned, ownership rights and termination procedures, any service or maintenance
fees, etc.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Roll with the invention of Berlin as disclosed above, for the motivation of determining an appropriate insurance investment product for an individual or group of individuals which is objectively based.
Berlin further discloses:
selecting one or more investment options for the individual insurance investment product based on the request;
(C3 L32-42: “a process 100 for generating an objectively based recommendation or proposal for an appropriate insurance investment product is described … process 100 is performed as part of an investment management service or managed account offering wherein the selection of an appropriate insurance investment product is part of a broader set of investment offerings such as equities, mutual funds and fixed income products …”; C5 L14-15: “The insurance products may include a variety of options or modifications to a standard policy, may be wholly customized or the like …”: C10 L23-25: “a recommendation is provided for a specific insurance product based on a comparison of the values calculated in step 160 for each insurance type … C10 L46-47: “In some embodiments, a recommendation is made based on highest expected return from among products compared …”)
in response to verifying that a funding amount has been satisfied, generating the individual insurance investment product for the covered entity, comprising investing the funding amount in the one or more investment options on behalf of the user.
(C5 L52-67: “… an expected investment amount is calculated. In some embodiments, the expected investment amount is calculated by adjusting the nominal premium to be paid … by the mortality assumption consistent with an applicable underwriting scenario … In some embodiments, the net present value of expected premium payments is then calculated to generate the expected investment. In some cases, multiple expected investment amounts are calculated based on different customer data sets for the same customer ( e.g., with different assumptions for each data set, variation based on the type of insurance product, etc.). In another embodiment, which may vary based on insurance type selected, the expected investment amount is calculated …”; C10 L23-25: “At step 170, a recommendation is provided for a specific insurance product based on a comparison of the values calculated in step 160 for each insurance type.”; C11 L51-55: “The recommendation system in some embodiments provides sources for a customer to obtain the recommended insurance, such as through a list of issuers or links to issuer websites where applications may be obtained.”)
Re Claim 2: (New) Berlin in view of Roll discloses the method of claim 1. Berlin further discloses:
selecting one or more product types for the individual insurance investment product based on the request.
(C3 L32-42: “a process 100 for generating an objectively based recommendation or proposal for an appropriate insurance investment product is described … process 100 is performed as part of an investment management service or managed account offering wherein the selection of an appropriate insurance investment product is part of a broader set of investment offerings such as equities, mutual funds and fixed income products …”; C5 L14-15: “The insurance products may include a variety of options or modifications to a standard policy, may be wholly customized or the like …”: C10 L23-25: “a recommendation is provided for a specific insurance product based on a comparison of the values calculated in step 160 for each insurance type … C10 L46-47: “In some embodiments, a recommendation is made based on highest expected return from among products compared …”)
Re Claim 3: (New) Berlin in view of Roll discloses the method of claim 1. Berlin further discloses:
selecting one or more coverage types based at least in part on the covered entity.
(C3 L32-42: “a process 100 for generating an objectively based recommendation or proposal for an appropriate insurance investment product is described … process 100 is performed as part of an investment management service or managed account offering wherein the selection of an appropriate insurance investment product is part of a broader set of investment offerings such as equities, mutual funds and fixed income products …”; C5 L14-15: “The insurance products may include a variety of options or modifications to a standard policy, may be wholly customized or the like …”: C10 L23-25: “a recommendation is provided for a specific insurance product based on a comparison of the values calculated in step 160 for each insurance type … C10 L46-47: “In some embodiments, a recommendation is made based on highest expected return from among products compared …”)
Re Claim 4: (New) Berlin in view Roll discloses the method of claim 1. Berlin further discloses:
wherein selecting the one or more investment options comprises:
generating one or more features based on the request;
(C3 L32-42: “a process 100 for generating an objectively based recommendation or proposal for an appropriate insurance investment product is described … process 100 is performed as part of an investment management service or managed account offering wherein the selection of an appropriate insurance investment product is part of a broader set of investment offerings such as equities, mutual funds and fixed income products …”; C5 L14-15: “The insurance products may include a variety of options or modifications to a standard policy, may be wholly customized or the like …”: C10 L23-25: “a recommendation is provided for a specific insurance product based on a comparison of the values calculated in step 160 for each insurance type … C10 L46-47: “In some embodiments, a recommendation is made based on highest expected return from among products compared …”)
Regarding the limitation feature comprising:
processing the one or more features using a trained machine learning model to select the one or more investment options.
Roll makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C5 L17-20: “Risk levels and/or the criteria or criterion upon which the risk levels are determined may be discovered, determined, defined, and/or categorized by using actuarial science techniques, machine learning techniques …”; C17 L47-51: “ Determining, predicting, estimating, and/or quantifying the risk of a particular insurance policy may be performed by any suitable technique, including actuarial techniques, underwriting techniques, machine learning techniques, and the like …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Roll with the invention of Berlin as disclosed above, for the motivation of determining an appropriate insurance investment product for an individual or group of individuals which is objectively based.
Re Claim 5: (New) Berlin in view of Roll discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation feature comprising:
executing a smart contract on a blockchain based on the individual insurance investment product.
Roll makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C13 L26-34: “at least a portion of the risk management system may be implemented using blockchain technologies … and/
or may administer the financial instruments utilizing blockchain technology”; C11 L32-34” winning bidding party or parties may then be automatically entered into a binding contract for the financial instruments indicated …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Roll with the invention of Berlin as disclosed above, for the motivation of providing high security and accuracy for transactions being executed.
Re Claim 6: (New) Berlin in view of Roll discloses the method of claim 1. Berlin further discloses:
receiving one or more dividends from the invested funding amount;
reinvesting the one or more dividends in the one or more investment options.
(C6 L11-16: “In some embodiments, the determination of which insurance investment product is most suitable is based on factors such as … varying dividend scale assumptions”; C6 L48-52: “a variety of data may be used including the face amount of the insurance … dividends payable under the policy”)
Re Claim 7: (New) Berlin in view of Roll discloses the method of claim 1. Berlin further discloses:
receiving a claim against the individual insurance investment product based on a loss to the covered entity; validating the claim; selling at least one of the one or more investment options; and fulfilling the claim.
(C2 L25-31: “In some embodiments, calculating an expected benefit from a first type of insurance product or a second type of insurance product comprises calculating an expected benefit based at least in part on mortality-weighted death benefits and mortality weighted distributions from the contract for retirement income or other purposes, or mortality weighted withdrawals from and loans on the life insurance contract”; C10 L32-37: “… if a custom whole life insurance product or variable universal life insurance product is the optimal solution, then the customer will meet his or her death benefit need with one of those products and will meet fixed income or equity needs with the cash value portion of such products …”)
Re Claim 8: (New) Berlin in view of Roll discloses the method of claim 7. Berlin further discloses:
determining a claimed amount based on the claim; and determining an available coverage amount based on the funding amount and at least one of appreciation or depreciation of the invested funding amount, wherein fulfilling the claim comprises paying the user a lesser of the claimed amount and the available coverage amount.
(C2 L25-31: “In some embodiments, calculating an expected benefit from a first type of insurance product or a second type of insurance product comprises calculating an expected benefit based at least in part on mortality-weighted death benefits and mortality weighted distributions from the contract for retirement income or other purposes, or mortality weighted withdrawals from and loans on the life insurance contract”; C10 L32-37: “… if a custom whole life insurance product or variable universal life insurance product is the optimal solution, then the customer will meet his or her death benefit need with one of those products and will meet fixed income or equity needs with the cash value portion of such products …”)
Re Claim 9: (New) Claim 9 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 10: (New) Claim 10 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 11: (New) Claim 11 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 12: (New) Claim 12 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 13: (New) Claim 13 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 14: (New) Claim 14 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 15: (New) Claim 15 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Re Claim 16: (New) Claim 16 as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 9. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berlin et al., US 9,928,552 B1 (“Berlin”) in view of Roll et al., US 10,713,728 B1 (“Roll”), further in view of Mee, US 2023/0325825 A1 (“Mee”).
Re Claim 17: (New) Berlin discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors; (FIG. 4 [430]: “Server”; C14 L19: “… System 400 includes a user computer 410”)
one or more memories storing a program, which, when executed on any combination of the one or more processors, performs operations, the operations comprising: (FIG. 4 [430]: “Server”; C14 L19: “… System 400 includes a user computer 410”)
providing a web-based user interface configured to receive user input data comprising insurance coverage parameters for an insured entity; (C4 L48-49: “the data may be obtained via the Internet …”; C11 L44-45: “insurance product application may be produced in a computer interface …”)
generating an individual insurance investment product based on the user input data,
(C1 L51-64: “determining an objectively appropriate insurance investment product for a customer … the method includes inputting a set of customer data including at least certain customer criteria … and recommending an insurance product; C3 L32-34: “generating an
objectively based recommendation or proposal for an appropriate investment product is described …”; C3 L42-45: “an investment adviser representative may meet with a prospective customer and work with the customer to identify the customer's goals and objectives …”)
Regarding the limitation feature comprising:
… wherein the individual insurance investment product configured to allocate investment returns to the insured entity, based on executing at least one of (i) a product match machine learning model or (ii) an investment match machine learning model;
Roll makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C5 L17-20: “Risk levels and/or the criteria or criterion upon which the risk levels are determined may be discovered, determined, defined, and/or categorized by using actuarial science techniques, machine learning techniques …”; C17 L47-51: “ Determining, predicting, estimating, and/or quantifying the risk of a particular insurance policy may be performed by any suitable technique, including actuarial techniques, underwriting techniques, machine learning techniques, and the like …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Roll with the invention of Berlin as disclosed above, for the motivation of determining an appropriate insurance investment product for an individual or group of individuals which is objectively based.
Berlin further discloses:
allocating funds of the individual insurance investment product to one or more selected investment options;
(C2 L25-31: “In some embodiments, calculating an expected benefit from a first type of insurance product or a second type of insurance product comprises calculating an expected benefit based at least in part on mortality-weighted death benefits and mortality weighted distributions from the contract for retirement income or other purposes, or mortality weighted withdrawals from and loans on the life insurance contract”; C10 L32-37: “… if a custom whole life insurance product or variable universal life insurance product is the optimal solution, then the customer will meet his or her death benefit need with one of those products and will meet fixed income or equity needs with the cash value portion of such products …”)
Regarding the limitation comprising:
recording ownership of the individual insurance investment product on a distributed ledger blockchain using a smart contract configured to ensure atomic transaction execution.
Mee makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0010] “ According to a first aspect a computer-implemented method for tracking ownership and usage of an asset on a blockchain … submitting a usage transaction to the blockchain, the usage transaction comprising data indicative of the asset used and a user using the asset; receiving an ownership update request comprising information indicative of a second owner, and upon reception of the ownership update request: submitting an update transaction to the blockchain, the update transaction comprising information indicative of the asset, the first owner, and the second owner.”; [0035] “Optionally, the set of transactions associated with the asset is associated with a smart contract associated with the asset, the set of transactions associated with the first owner is associated with a smart contract associated with the first owner, the set of transactions associated with the second user is associated with a smart contract associated with the second user, and the set of transactions associated with the user is associated with a smart contract associated with the user…”; [0189] “… It can be seen that said transaction 702 is present in both the sets of transactions associated with the asset 740 and the first owner 742. Thus both of the sets of transactions are updated together in one atomic transaction”; [0190] “… the transactions 702, 712 are atomic such that all of the sets of transactions representing each asset and owner 740, 742, 748 are updated at the same time”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mee with the invention of Berlin as disclosed above, for the motivation of ensuring the ongoing integrity and immutability of transactions.
Re Claim 18: (New) Berlin in view of Roll in view of Mee discloses the system of claim 17. Berlin doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein generating the individual insurance investment product comprises executing the product match machine learning model to assign the insured entity to a risk pool, wherein the individual insurance investment product comprises a first portion allocated to an individual account and a second portion allocated to a pooled risk account.
Roll makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C5 L17-20: “Risk levels and/or the criteria or criterion upon which the risk levels are determined may be discovered, determined, defined, and/or categorized by using actuarial science techniques, machine learning techniques …”; C17 L47-51: “ Determining, predicting, estimating, and/or quantifying the risk of a particular insurance policy may be performed by any suitable technique, including actuarial techniques, underwriting techniques, machine learning techniques, and the like …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Roll with the invention of Berlin as disclosed above, for the motivation of determining an appropriate insurance investment product for an individual or group of individuals which is objectively based.
Re Claim 19: (New) Berlin in view of Roll in view of Mee discloses the system of claim 17. Berlin doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein generating the individual insurance investment product comprises executing the investment match machine learning model to select the one or more investment options based on an investment risk of the insured entity.
Roll makes this teaching in a related endeavor (C5 L17-20: “Risk levels and/or the criteria or criterion upon which the risk levels are determined may be discovered, determined, defined, and/or categorized by using actuarial science techniques, machine learning techniques …”; C17 L47-51: “ Determining, predicting, estimating, and/or quantifying the risk of a particular insurance policy may be performed by any suitable technique, including actuarial techniques, underwriting techniques, machine learning techniques, and the like …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Roll with the invention of Berlin as disclosed above, for the motivation of determining an appropriate insurance investment product for an individual or group of individuals which is objectively based.
Re Claim 20: (New) Berlin in view of Roll in view of Mee discloses the system of claim 17. Berlin further discloses:
receiving a claim submission via the user interface, the claim submission comprising claim data associated with the individual insurance investment product;
(C2 L25-31: “In some embodiments, calculating an expected benefit from a first type of insurance product or a second type of insurance product comprises calculating an expected benefit based at least in part on mortality-weighted death benefits and mortality weighted distributions from the contract for retirement income or other purposes, or mortality weighted withdrawals from and loans on the life insurance contract”; C10 L32-37: “… if a custom whole life insurance product or variable universal life insurance product is the optimal solution, then the customer will meet his or her death benefit need with one of those products and will meet fixed income or equity needs with the cash value portion of such products …”)
Regarding the limitation comprising:
verifying the claim submission by querying the smart contract on the distributed ledger blockchain to authenticate ownership and validate compliance with product terms;
Mee makes this teaching in a related endeavor ([0010] “ According to a first aspect a computer-implemented method for tracking ownership and usage of an asset on a blockchain … submitting a usage transaction to the blockchain, the usage transaction comprising data indicative of the asset used and a user using the asset; receiving an ownership update request comprising information indicative of a second owner, and upon reception of the ownership update request: submitting an update transaction to the blockchain, the update transaction comprising information indicative of the asset, the first owner, and the second owner.”; [0035] “Optionally, the set of transactions associated with the asset is associated with a smart contract associated with the asset, the set of transactions associated with the first owner is associated with a smart contract associated with the first owner, the set of transactions associated with the second user is associated with a smart contract associated with the second user, and the set of transactions associated with the user is associated with a smart contract associated with the user…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mee with the invention of Berlin as disclosed above, for the motivation of ensuring the ongoing integrity and immutability of transactions.
Berlin further discloses:
disbursing funds from the individual insurance investment product to fulfill the claim upon validation by liquidating a portion of the allocated funds.
(C2 L25-31: “In some embodiments, calculating an expected benefit from a first type of insurance product or a second type of insurance product comprises calculating an expected benefit based at least in part on mortality-weighted death benefits and mortality weighted distributions from the contract for retirement income or other purposes, or mortality weighted withdrawals from and loans on the life insurance contract”; C10 L32-37: “… if a custom whole life insurance product or variable universal life insurance product is the optimal solution, then the customer will meet his or her death benefit need with one of those products and will meet fixed income or equity needs with the cash value portion of such products …”)
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kennedy et al. (US 2010/0125481 A1) discloses a system and method for providing investment products. The invention relates, in various aspects, to systems, methods, and computer readable media suited for enabling partial owners of wholesale broker dealers to participate in providing
investment products. Reports of wholesale fees received by and expenses incurred by a wholesale broker-dealer, in relation to wholesale support services for investment products, are stored. The wholesale support services are provided to registered representatives of a separate retail broker-dealer who are affiliated with the partial owners. The wholesale fees and expenses are allocated among the partial owners. A distribution is determined and effected for each partial owner based on a difference between the wholesale fees and the expenses allocated to the respective partial owner.
Wasserman (US 10,664,917 B1) discloses personalized insurance systems. Personalized insurance systems, including vehicle-based devices and modules , insurance system servers, personal mobile devices, and other computing devices, may operate individually or in combination to determine and implement personalized vehicle insurance policies. Such policies may be driver-specific, time-specific, vehicle-specific, and/or driving-trip specific. Various driver data, vehicle data, and driving trip data may be received and analyzed in order to determine usage-based insurance parameters for vehicle
driving and non-driving activities . Personalized vehicle insurance policies may be presented to and accepted by drivers, after which the drivers and one or more associated vehicles may be monitored to detect and store vehicle usage data in accordance with the personalized insurance policy.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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