DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-A/A or A/A Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated June 03, 2026 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 03, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The Amendment filed on September 03, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claim 12 was previously cancelled. No new claims have been added and no additional claims have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 8–11 and 13-14), a machine (claims 15-20), and a manufacture (claims 1-7), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03).
Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of receiving insurance rate filing information in order to generate insurance pricing by:
a pricing,…,operable to determine a price of insurance corresponding to at least one insurance product given a set of user data;
an orchestrator for parsing and structuring a,…, into the pricing,…,, wherein the orchestrator is a trained machine learning,…, trained to structure pricing information based on historical rate filings and corresponding pricing,…, and configured to determine relationships between questions, answers, fields, and pricing impacts parsed from the one or more rate filings and to generate the pricing,…, by structuring the relationships into at least one pricing,…, data structure comprising at least one of a matrix, graph, tree, list, or,…, wherein the at least one pricing-engine data structure represents how answer values for the questions affect the price of insurance;;
and
….comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one,…,
perform a method of generating the pricing,…,based on one or more rate filings, the method comprising:
automatically scraping, in real time and from an external system, the one or more rate filings corresponding to the at least one insurance product, wherein the one or more rate filings are in a natural language;
translating, via a natural language processing,…, the one or more rate filings, wherein the one or more rate filings are translated into the set of computer-readable,…, by parsing words, lines, sentences, structures, and sections of the one or more rate filings using at least one natural language processing technique selected from name-entity recognition, relation extraction, text summarization, topic modeling, text classification, keyword extraction, lemmatization, or stemming;;
obtaining a set of unstructured pricing information for the at least one insurance product by at least parsing the set of computer-readable,…,; and
structuring, the set of unstructured pricing information into the pricing,…, comprising:
generating, via the orchestrator, a query to request at least one of a number of rate structures or a number of data fields from the natural language processing,…,
responsive to receiving the number of rate structures, iteratively querying the natural language processing engine to determine a field number for each rate structure,
determining, via the orchestrator, relationships between the questions, the answers, the fields, and the impact of the questions and answers on the price of insurance,
generating the pricing,…,by structuring the relationships into at least one data structure comprising at least one of a matrix, graph, tree, list, or,…, wherein the at least one data structure represents how answer values for the questions affect the price of insurance;
verifying the pricing,…, by comparing an output of the pricing,…, for a set of verification facts with an output obtained directly from an insurance provider for the set of verification facts, and
responsive to determining that an accuracy of the pricing,…, falls below a predetermined threshold, escalating the pricing,…, to an administrative review,
wherein the pricing,…, is generated before receiving the set of user data and determines the price of insurance corresponding to the at least one insurance product for the set of user data by applying the impact of the questions and answers represented in the at least one data structure to answer values corresponding to the set of user data.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving insurance rate filing information in order to generate insurance pricing).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “data, “engine,” “network,” and “medium” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0007] of the specification). Independent claims 1 and 8 are nearly identical to claim 15 so the same analysis applies to these claims as well.
Dependent claims 2–7, 9–11, 13-14, and 16-20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 7, 9, and 10 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as they describe that the one or more rate filing are an updated version of an existing rate filing. Dependent claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that the natural language processing engine is a large language model. Dependent claim 4 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes transmitting a query for gathering information associated with structuring of the set of pricing information. Dependent claim 5 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that the query includes a request for rate structure number. Dependent claim 6 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes determining a field number of each rate structure. Dependent claim 11 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that rate filing corresponding to a single jurisdiction. Dependent claim 13 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that the pricing engine corresponds to a plurality of insurance products. Dependent claim 14 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes what the administrative bodies actually are. Dependent claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that the rate filings are received in real time. Dependent claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that the orchestrator is trained on a plurality of historical rate filings. Dependent claim 18 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that the pricing engine is structured with various elements. Dependent claim 19 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that the pricing engine corresponds to a singular insurance product. Dependent claim 20 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that the one or more rate filings correspond to a plurality of jurisdictions. Dependent claim 21 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as it describes that the structuring comprises transmitting the query to a large language model to translate the one or more rate filings from natural language into the set of computer-readable data.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on September 03, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “…the claimed focus is not the act of pricing insurance for a consumer, but the machine-implemented generation of a structured pricing-engine representation from unstructured regulatory filing content and verification of that generated pricing engine.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 12). The heart of this invention has to do with carrying out a pricing inquiry for obtaining insurance for a consumer. Thus, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving insurance rate filing information in order to generate insurance pricing). Even if Applicant’s argument that the “machine-implemented generation of a structured pricing-engine representation from unstructured regulatory filing content and verification of that generated pricing engine” is what the focus of this invention is, the pricing of insurance for an insurance product for a user is the ultimate goal of this invention. This is clearly laid out in the independent claims.
Applicant next argues that “[t]he amended independent claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they recite a specific machine-implemented architecture for converting unstructured rate-filing content into a structured, machine-usable pricing-engine data structure and validating that generated engine.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 14). However, the amended claim limitations are not indicative of an integration into a practical application as improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field is not evidenced. Merely structuring the set of unstructured pricing information into a generic pricing engine does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These elements are merely generic components that are implementing the abstract idea.
Applicant finally argues that “[h]ere, the amended claims recite such an arrangement: a generation-and-validation architecture that produces a relationship-based pricing-engine data structure from unstructured natural-language rate filings and validates the generated pricing engine against insurer output. At minimum, the Office has not established that this ordered combination is merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 17). Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “data, “engine,” “network,” and “medium,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraphs [0007] of the specification). Using a machine learning model that is trained on a certain set of data to generate a query to request at least one of a number of rate structures is not a technological improvement. Merely gathering data and then determining relationships using a generic machine learning model to determine insurance pricing is not a technological improvement.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313)446-4902. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM 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, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. 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.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights