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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of February 5, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 2-21 are 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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of evaluating whether a new insurance policy would cause aggregate risk in a geographic area to exceed a predetermined capacity, and blocking issuance when that capacity would be exceeded without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 2 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 9 and 16.
Claim 2 is directed to a method which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 2 recites “method comprising:
receiving, from a …, an insurance policy request;
analyzing the insurance policy request to determine a geographical area associated with the insurance policy request;
determining whether the geographical area has a … issued;
upon determining there is no … issued for the geographical area, calculating an aggregate risk for the geographical area;
determining a response to the insurance policy request by evaluating the aggregate risk for the geographical area; and
displaying, by a display, the response”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of evaluating whether a new insurance policy would cause aggregate risk in a geographic area to exceed a predetermined capacity, and blocking issuance when that capacity would be exceeded and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles or practices including insurance). Accordingly, claim 2 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, e.g., “user device” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 2 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 2 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 2 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 9 and 16 each recite the abstract idea of evaluating whether a new insurance policy would cause aggregate risk in a geographic area to exceed a predetermined capacity, and blocking issuance when that capacity would be exceeded and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles or practices including insurance). Claim 9 includes the additional elements of “a system comprising: an agent interface module, aggregate risk management system communicatively coupled to the agent interface module, risk evaluation module communicatively coupled to the agent interface module and the aggregate risk management system”. Claim 16 includes the additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable medium containing program instructions for causing a computer to … “. The additional elements of claims 9 and 16 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Further, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 each recite “wherein evaluating the aggregate risk for the geographical area further comprises: retrieving a plurality of insurance policies associated with the geographical area; retrieving a plurality of policy attributes associated with each of the plurality of insurance policies; and calculating the aggregate risk using the plurality of policy attributes for the geographical area” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 each recite “wherein the response is one of no block, a limited block or a complete block” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 each recite “wherein the method further comprises: displaying a map of the geographical area including the response” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 each recite “wherein determining the response to the insurance policy request comprises comparing the aggregate risk of the geographical area against a maximum tolerable risk exposure” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 14 each recite “wherein the maximum tolerable risk exposure is a monetary value” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 21 each recite “calculating a discrepancy between the aggregate risk and the maximum tolerable risk exposure” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites:
“…an agent interface module…an aggregate risk management system … a risk evaluation module …”.
The claim limitations above do not use the word “means” but are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use generic placeholders, “a second robotic node”, that are coupled with functional language, “acts”, without reciting sufficient structures to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers.
These claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the rejections under this section made in this Office action.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts et al. [US Pub No. 2014/0330594 A1].
As per claim 2, PG Pub US 20140330594 to Roberts et al teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, an insurance policy request (see Fig 5);
analyzing the insurance policy request to determine a geographical area associated with the insurance policy request (see ¶ 202 “The insurance computer system 104 may be configured to analyze the third-party platform API data…” and ¶ 203 “…different third-party web sites or platforms may typically have different types of information for an entity. For example, the API data for a Yelp page for an entity may typically have data for the entity such as: … location…”);
determining whether the geographical area has a block issued (see ¶ 208 “As shown, the form may include fields for different categories of terms or phrases found in the data from the third-party sites, such as "alert" terms or phrases (2810), terms and phrases related to a potentially ‘uninsurable’” see fig. 28 which shows addresses associated with “uninsurable” status);
upon determining there is no block issued for the geographical area, calculating an aggregate risk for the geographical area (see Figure 29, following the “NO” path from element 2960 to element 2970, and see element 2990);
determining a response to the insurance policy request by evaluating the aggregate risk for the geographical area (see Fig 30, elements 3020, 3030 and 3050, see also ¶ 244 “In another example, an insurance company may define a rule that is triggered when the data indicates that a professional office is located in a building which includes residential apartments, because of the recognition that residential apartments include risks such as kitchen fires that may present additional risk when providing coverage for the professional office. When the rule is triggered, an appropriate increase in premium is associated with the entity, which may depend on the number of residential apartments in the building in which the professional office is located.”); and
displaying, by a display, the response (see ¶ 248 “Once an offer of insurance is generated by the business logic processor, the offer may be delivered to the entity via the agent or computer application”). Claim 9 is a system claim with the same limitations as claim 1 and stand rejected on the same grounds. Claim 16 is a non-transient computer-readable medium claim with the same limitations as claim 1 and stands rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Robert discloses wherein evaluating the aggregate risk for the geographical area further comprises: retrieving a plurality of insurance policies associated with the geographical area; retrieving a plurality of policy attributes associated with each of the plurality of insurance policies; and calculating the aggregate risk using the plurality of policy attributes for the geographical area (see Fig 30, elements 3020, 3030 and 3050, see also ¶ 244 “In another example, an insurance company may define a rule that is triggered when the data indicates that a professional office is located in a building which includes residential apartments, because of the recognition that residential apartments include risks such as kitchen fires that may present additional risk when providing coverage for the professional office. When the rule is triggered, an appropriate increase in premium is associated with the entity, which may depend on the number of residential apartments in the building in which the professional office is located.”).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Robert discloses wherein the response is one of no block, a limited block or a complete block (see Figure 29, following the “NO” path from element 2960 to element 2970, and see element 2990).
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 19, Robert discloses wherein the response is one of no block, a limited block or a complete block (see Figure 29, following the “NO” path from element 2960 to element 2970, and see element 2990).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Robert discloses wherein determining the response to the insurance policy request comprises comparing the aggregate risk of the geographical area against a maximum tolerable risk exposure area (see Fig 30, elements 3020, 3030 and 3050, see also ¶ 244 “In another example, an insurance company may define a rule that is triggered when the data indicates that a professional office is located in a building which includes residential apartments, because of the recognition that residential apartments include risks such as kitchen fires that may present additional risk when providing coverage for the professional office. When the rule is triggered, an appropriate increase in premium is associated with the entity, which may depend on the number of residential apartments in the building in which the professional office is located.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Robert discloses wherein the maximum tolerable risk exposure is a monetary value area (see Fig 30, elements 3020, 3030 and 3050, see also ¶ 244 “In another example, an insurance company may define a rule that is triggered when the data indicates that a professional office is located in a building which includes residential apartments, because of the recognition that residential apartments include risks such as kitchen fires that may present additional risk when providing coverage for the professional office. When the rule is triggered, an appropriate increase in premium is associated with the entity, which may depend on the number of residential apartments in the building in which the professional office is located.”).
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 21, Robert discloses further comprising: calculating a discrepancy between the aggregate risk and the maximum tolerable risk exposure area (see Fig 30, elements 3020, 3030 and 3050, see also ¶ 244 “In another example, an insurance company may define a rule that is triggered when the data indicates that a professional office is located in a building which includes residential apartments, because of the recognition that residential apartments include risks such as kitchen fires that may present additional risk when providing coverage for the professional office. When the rule is triggered, an appropriate increase in premium is associated with the entity, which may depend on the number of residential apartments in the building in which the professional office is located.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 am through 6pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights