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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on May 04, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 15-16 have been amended. Claim 12 has been canceled and claim 21 has been newly added. Thus, claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. 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;
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 natural language processing, the one or more rate filings, wherein the one or more rate filings are translated into the set of computer-readable,…;
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.
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,” 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
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on May 04, 2026 have been fully considered.
As a result of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, the pending rejection of Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is hereby withdrawn. The newly amended independent claims include the limitation relating to the automatic scraping of one or more rate filings from the external system which is not taught by the primary reference of Fields.
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 “…that the supposed abstract idea is not recited or set forth in the claims and the present invention is subject-matter eligible.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). 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).
Applicant next argues that “[a]pplicant submits that even if the claim were directed to the alleged abstract idea, the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). 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 “[e]ven if the abstract idea was recited in the claims and also not integrated into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of "receiving insurance rate filing information in order to generate insurance pricing.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 9). 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,” 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). understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements.” 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.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR §1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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 Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. 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.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights