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
Claims 9 – 12 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1 – 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 9 – 12 are wholly directed to a “system … comprising computers with executable instructions…”, wherein the claimed “system” of computers and instructions intend to cover embodiments of software per se, such as virtual systems and virtual machines (e.g. see Applicant’s specification, par. 108). As such, the claims fail to fall within any statutory category of invention and are non-patentable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 8 and 13 - 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art discloses a system for automated insurance underwriting and for offering of insurance policies to individuals/companies, wherein the system employs means for creating insurance policies based upon the analysis of a directed graph created from information used to underwrite the policy (e.g. Hendry et al., US 2003/0008057 A1, par. 27, 62; fig. 2).
Furthermore, the prior art teaches the collection of information necessary for insurance underwriting and policy issuance through the use of connected sensors (e.g. Helitzer et al., US 2008/0065427 A1, fig. 2; par. 47, 48).
Further disclosed is the automated insurance underwriting and for offering of insurance policies to individuals/companies, wherein the system employs means for collecting risk information for individuals/companies and employs machine learning for calculating a risk to aid in selecting the appropriate policy to offer (e.g. Roberts et al., US 2014/0244317 A1, Abstract; fig. 3, 4). Furthermore, the prior art also discloses that the collected risk information can be relative to computer and technology factors and that a system may employ machine learning to predict risk from accidental and malicious activity (e.g. Shultz et al., US 2015/0381649 A1, Abstract; par. 32, 99, 236; fig. 7, 8).
However, the prior art fails to disclose, as found recited in combination with all remaining claim limitations, the features of a system and method, essentially to …
… searching an underwriting database using the insurance underwriting information in the contract block and return a search result comprising underwriting data; creating a directed graph from the search result and the status of the sensor, the directed graph comprising nodes representing discrete elements of the underwriting data and edges representing relationships among the nodes; performing a graph analysis on the directed graph to determine a best fit among the nodes and edges; selecting a plurality of contract terms for the risk from the underwriting data based on the best fit; writing the plurality of contract terms into the contract block; executing the programmatic operating instructions built in to the contract block to determine whether the plurality of contract terms comply with the law or regulation in the underwriting database ….
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. 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.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights