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 Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 07 January 2025 and 26 June 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 21-40 are newly added via preliminary amendment.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 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 nonstatutory 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,104, Claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,615,379 and Claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,839,354. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an obvious combination of these same elements present in the parent patents, are broader than, use non-identical but functionally similar wording, or omit elements with a corresponding loss of function. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPA 375.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a computing system, computer implemented method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for a home screen agent and insurance card widget. These are a machine, process, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 21, 30 and 37:
Claims 21, 30 and 37:
“determining that the expiration date is prior to a current date;”
“presenting,…, a user interface including a virtual representation of the document and an indication that the document is expired;”
“responsive to an authentication of the user via the credentials, receiving,… , an updated expiration date of the document based at least in part on the contract;”
“presenting,…, an updated user interface including an updated virtual representation of the document with an indication of the updated expiration date.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors;”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:”, “an electronic device”, “a display”, “a server”, or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer- readable instructions to be executed by one or more processors of a system for updating a virtual representation of an expired document to reflect an updated expiration date, the instructions when executed causing the one or more processors to:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Insurance. Insurance is described when updating insurance card information. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claims 21, 30 and 37:
“one or more processors; and”
“one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:”
“storing, on an electronic device, information associated with a contract between a user and a service provider, wherein the information includes an expiration date of a document associated with the contract;”
“…via a display associated with the electronic device…”
“receiving, via user input to the user interface, credentials required to log into a server of the service provider;”
“storing, on the electronic device, the updated expiration date; and”
“…from the server…”
“…via the display…”
Claim 37:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer- readable instructions to be executed by one or more processors of a system for updating a virtual representation of an expired document to reflect an updated expiration date, the instructions when executed causing the one or more processors to:”
The computer components (one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, electronic device, display and server) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic processors, generic storage, a generic device, a generic display and a generic server) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The storing and receiving step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generally storing and generally receiving) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
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 independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do 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, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for storing various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
(for receiving various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 22-29, 31-36 and 38-40 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner find that the claims would not have been obvious over a combination of the cited prior art. What follows is a discussion of the closest prior art of reference.
U.S. Patent No. 9,996,878 by inventor Michael Scott Fox filed on March 11, 2015 teaches displaying an electronic insurance card widget and an electronic insurance card including an agent name and phone number in [Col 5, Ln 26-41], "FIG. 1B illustrates a graphical user interface 102B displayed on the in-vehicle display 102A, which functions as a home screen. The graphical user interface 102B includes three portions: top, body, and bottom. The top portion contains an icon named "TRAFFIC & WEATHER" appearing graphically as a cloud under which is a bolt of lightning. Selection of the "TRAFFIC & WEATHER" icon causes the system 100 to navigate the insured 106 to the traffic monitor module 118 and the weather monitor module 116. Another icon named "INSURANCE ID CARD" appears as a stylized business card, the invocation of which causes the system 100 to navigate the insured 106 to the insurance card module 112"; AND, in [Col 9, Ln 19-23], “When the insured 106 invokes the insurance card module 112 on the in- vehicle display 102A, the graphical user interface 300 appears. See FIG. 3. At the top of the graphical user interface 300 is the title of the graphical user interface 300, namely, “Insurance Card"; AND, in Figure 3.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0011304 by inventor Marcel MWA van Os filed on July 9, 2008 teaches displaying a software widget including a name and an image of an insurance agent of a user on a screen of the display in Par [0043], "FIG. 5A is a block diagram of an example mobile device 100 including a page 502 associated with a newly created icon 405 depicted in FIG. 4. In some implementations, selecting the icon 405 can cause the contact page 502 to be displayed on the mobile device 100. The contact page 502 can include an image 504 of a person, place, or thing representing the contact. The contact page 502 can include a name 506 of the contact. The contact page 502 can include other information associated with the contact, such as any combination of one or more phone numbers 508, one or more email addresses 510, one or more website (e.g., Internet homepage) addresses 514, or one or more concrete (e.g., mailing) addresses 516. The name and other information associated with the contact page 502 can be edited by the user, as described with respect to FIG. 3". Marcel Figure 4 shows anicon (i.e., widget) having name and image, and Figure 5 shows the phone number, mailing address, and email address.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0106725 by inventor Paul Bernell Finley, Jr filed on November 12, 2004, is analogous art that teaches comparing the associated effective end date … with a current date, generating a first indicia if the associated effective end date occurred before the current date, and displaying the first indicia on the first screen overlaid on a software widget in Par [0040], “As described above and further illustrated by FIG. 2B, several of the license status symbols are represented utilizing a stoplight icon with positional, color-coded license status, where red indicates that the license has expired and needs to be renewed, yellow (or amber) indicates that the license is about to expire and should be renewed within the near future, and green indicates that the license is still valid and is not close to expiring"; AND, in Figure 3 showing different stoplight icons for different license statuses.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0018889 by inventor James C. Petersen field on June 12, 2008 teaches in Par [0120], "A certificate of insurance is a special case document that can be uploaded by any company and assigned an expiration date by the company. The certificate of insurance is stored at the company or participant level and is not necessarily specific to a schedule of values or applications for payment. In an embodiment, thirty days prior to the expiration date of the certificate of insurance, the company that uploaded the certificate of insurance will receive an electronic notification, such as a pop-up alert at a corresponding web client upon the creation of an application for payment, providing notice of the pending expiration. Likewise, participants contracting with a company having a certificate of insurance within (or beyond) the 30 day period prior to expiration will receive an electronic notification, such as a pop-up alert, on corresponding applications for payment, notifying them that the submitting company's certification of insurance is due to expire, or has expired". Peterson does not specifically teach the expiration date of the insurance document is stored on the client/mobile device nor does it periodically compare the expiration date of the document (e.g., in the "background") without the user initiating an application for payment that triggers the expiration date comparison.
WIPO Application Publication No. 2012/090146 A2 by inventor Juerg Ralph Ernst filed on December 14, 2011 discloses, "The invention relates to a computer-assisted method for activating an insurance certificate for vehicles on a homepage, wherein the policy holder himself is authorized to access a clearing system of insurances to have an electronic insurance certificate issued and to electronically forward it directly to the vehicle licensing authority, whereupon the policy holder is automatically invited to collect the number plates and the vehicle registration document from the vehicle licensing authority. The method according to the invention can also be used to take out a policy of other insurances, including electronic payment and electronic issuance of the policy and electronically automated claim settlement" (Abstract).
Non-Patent Literature entitled Expired Indicia on Diplomatic Driving License dated March 12, 2002 shows an indicia overlaid on a card showing the card has expired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jorgensen (US 2010/0299156 A1) discloses managing expiration date data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691