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
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 10 and product claim 19. Claim 1 recites the limitations of identifying insurance vendors/products by identifying relevant products/services based on customer’s attributes.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving client attribute data; identifying relevant coverage lines; generating a solution matrix for each coverage line; and displaying matrix on GUI, – specifically, the claim recites
receiving client attribute data… identifying one or more relevant coverage lines based on the received client attribute data… generating a solution matrix for each of the one or more relevant coverage lines… wherein the generated solution matrix is configured to be displayed, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a computing system”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “a network server”, and “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, in claim 10; the additional technical element of “a computing device” in claim 1; and the additional technical element of “a computer program product” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 19, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a computing system, a processor, and a network server; a communication device such as a graphical user interface (GUI); a storage unit such as a memory and a non-transitory computer readable medium; software module and algorithm such as a computer program product. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of each solution matrix includes a set of possible solutions and each solution from the set of possible solutions is represented as a point in the solution matrix, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of each point in the solution matrix includes one or more loss drivers, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of in response to selecting a solution from the solution matrix, presenting a solution page for the selected solution on the GUI, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “GUI” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of the solution page includes more detailed information about the selected solution and one or more of a projection tool, a return on investment (ROI) analysis, an interactive calculator, and a vendor comparison, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of identifying one or more vendors related to the selected solution at the network server; generating a vendor score for each vendor based on a set of viability factors at the network server; and generating a comparison table for the one or more vendors based on the generated vendor scores at the network server, wherein the generated comparison table is configured to be displayed on the GUI which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the network server” and “GUI” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of the set of viability factors include at least one of relevance of vendor products to the selected solution, history of performance, overall price, availability of discounts, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of in response to selecting a vendor from the comparison table, presenting a vendor page on the GUI, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “GUI” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of the vendor page includes one or more of an overview of vendor products and services, available discounts, and contact information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of each solution matrix includes a set of possible solutions, and each solution from the set of possible solutions is represented as a point in the solution matrix, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of each point in the solution matrix includes one or more loss drivers, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of : in response to selecting a solution from the solution matrix, presenting a solution page for the selected solution on the GUI, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “GUI” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of the solution page includes more detailed information about the selected solution and one or more of a projection tool, a return on investment (ROI) analysis, an interactive calculator, and a vendor comparison, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of identify one or more vendors related to the selected solution at the network server; generate a vendor score for each vendor based on a set of viability factors at the network server; and generate a comparison table for the one or more vendors based on the generated vendor scores at the network server, wherein the generated comparison table is configured to be displayed on the GUI, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the network server” and “GUI” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of the set of viability factors include at least one of relevance of vendor products to the selected solution, history of performance, overall price, availability of discounts, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of in response to selecting a vendor from the comparison table, presenting a vendor page to be displayed on the GUI, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “GUI” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of the vendor page includes one or more of an overview of vendor products and services, available discounts, and contact information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 discloses the limitation of each solution matrix includes a set of possible solutions, and each solution from the set of possible solutions is represented as a point in the solution matrix, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for 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
OR
(a) (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mdeway (20150006206).
Regarding claim 1, Mdeway teaches
a computer-implemented method executed on a computing device for risk control analysis, comprising:
receiving client attribute data at a network server
(“[0021] Utilizing various embodiments of this disclosure, consumers may receive insurance data in a multitude of methods. For example, in some embodiments, during an interview process a user enters information about the insurance policies the user has. In some other embodiments, a user uploads policy files, provides a list or selects from a list the insurance companies with the consumer's existing policy identifying information, and the policies' data may be retrieved directly from the insurance companies. In other embodiments, the user provides a list of insurance companies with policy identifying information and the policies data is retrieved directly from a source housing the policies data other than directly from the insurance companies”).
(“[0022] In some embodiments, data (which may include policy data) may be imported at any time from a variety of sources using a data import-export engine (DIEE). Import sources may include, but are not limited to, insurance companies, data warehouses, policy holders, departments of insurance, and the like… Some embodiments allow data for an unlimited number of policies to be downloaded into and hosted for each user”).
(“[0018] For new users, the default profiles may be used initially to focus the interview according to the most likely areas of relevance for a particular user based on the consumer's status, which may include but is not limited to age, net worth, health conditions, occupation, possessions, business operations, etc. while at the same time ensuring that accurate proposals are prepared for all consumers including those that do not fit the standard profile”).
identifying one or more relevant coverage lines based on the received client attribute data at the network server
FIG. 12 identifying relevant insurance data
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
generating a solution matrix for each of the one or more relevant coverage lines at the network server,
See FIG. 18, recommended policies, vendor, rank/priority
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the generated solution matrix is configured to be displayed on a graphical user interface (GUI)
(“[0062] Regardless of the exact hardware or software, system configuration, programming language, manufacturer, design or application, among others, by which the system is implemented or accessed by users, in many embodiments the interview and analysis engine 402 provides some form of a user interface… Users may be offered a plurality of options and functionalities. In some embodiments the system may present a number of options available to users such as creating a risk profile report, a risk analysis report recommending coverages that insure the consumer against identified exposures, or a gap analysis report indicating gaps in coverage based on identified differences between the proposed recommendation and the existing insurance policies, among others”).
Regarding claim 2, Mdeway discloses
wherein each solution matrix includes a set of possible solutions and each solution from the set of possible solutions is represented as a point in the solution matrix
(“[0019] At a minimum, in some embodiments a user may be given the options of determining their comprehensive risk exposures profile or product-specific risk exposures profile. If the option of a comprehensive risk exposures profile is chosen, various embodiments of this disclosure will interview the user for the purpose of determining all of the consumer's insurance needs. In some embodiments, depending on the user's selection, a recommendation of multiple insurance policies that address the user's needs may then be presented… For example, during the process of a comprehensive risk analysis various embodiments of this disclosure may recommend home, auto, umbrella, health, life, and disability insurance coverages. Another example of product-specific risk exposures analysis may be a recommendation for home and umbrella policy coverages only. In either option and depending on the user's selection, various embodiments of this disclosure may provide all other reports including coverage gap analysis reports outlining lack of or insufficient insurance coverage in existing policies, and may enable the user to purchase additional coverages or one or multiple policies that meet the insured's risk exposures”).
(“[0023] the user in some embodiments may be presented with a comparison report of premiums and coverages of multiple policies from multiple insurance companies that meet the need of the consumer… Based on the data gathered during the interview process and the user's selection, insurance companies that do not offer the type of coverage required or that provide inferior coverage are automatically rejected, and in some embodiments the user may elect to be informed of the reason for rejection. In some embodiments, once the user selects the desired coverage, lists of policy forms and a comparison of policy forms may also be presented for those policies. The user in some embodiments may then choose an insurance company from which to purchase insurance. In addition, various embodiments of this disclosure may propose lists of insurance agents associated with the insurance company based upon certain criteria such as city state or zip code, or a professional designation, years of experienced, on-line reviews, multiple company appointments, for example Travelers AND The Hartford AND Aetna, association memberships, and the like”).
Regarding claim 3, Mdeway discloses
wherein each point in the solution matrix includes one or more loss drivers
See FIG. 18, recommended policies and loss events
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Mdeway discloses
in response to selecting a solution from the solution matrix, presenting a solution page for the selected solution on the GUI
(“[0062] Regardless of the exact hardware or software, system configuration, programming language, manufacturer, design or application, among others, by which the system is implemented or accessed by users, in many embodiments the interview and analysis engine 402 provides some form of a user interface… Users may be offered a plurality of options and functionalities. In some embodiments the system may present a number of options available to users such as creating a risk profile report, a risk analysis report recommending coverages that insure the consumer against identified exposures, or a gap analysis report indicating gaps in coverage based on identified differences between the proposed recommendation and the existing insurance policies, among others”).
Regarding claim 5, Mdeway discloses
wherein the solution page includes more detailed information about the selected solution and one or more of a projection tool, a return on investment (ROI) analysis, an interactive calculator, and a vendor comparison
(“[0020] In some embodiments, a user may be able to select desired coverages from a list of recommended coverages. Based on the selection, various embodiments of this disclosure may provide premium and coverage comparisons from multiple insurance companies, and may offer comparisons where coverages may be offered in one or more countries. The user may then be offered the option of choosing the desired insurance policies, select insurance agents associated with the insurance companies and/or purchase one policy or multiple policies at the same time. Furthermore, an insurance coverage recommendation report and multiple policy comparisons may be presented to the user”).
(“[0023] the user in some embodiments may be presented with a comparison report of premiums and coverages of multiple policies from multiple insurance companies that meet the need of the consumer… Based on the data gathered during the interview process and the user's selection, insurance companies that do not offer the type of coverage required or that provide inferior coverage are automatically rejected, and in some embodiments the user may elect to be informed of the reason for rejection. In some embodiments, once the user selects the desired coverage, lists of policy forms and a comparison of policy forms may also be presented for those policies. The user in some embodiments may then choose an insurance company from which to purchase insurance. In addition, various embodiments of this disclosure may propose lists of insurance agents associated with the insurance company based upon certain criteria such as city state or zip code, or a professional designation, years of experienced, on-line reviews, multiple company appointments, for example Travelers AND The Hartford AND Aetna, association memberships, and the like”).
See also FIG. 18, recommended policies, vendor, rank/priority
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Mdeway discloses
identifying one or more vendors related to the selected solution at the network server; generating a vendor score for each vendor based on a set of viability factors at the network server; and generating a comparison table for the one or more vendors based on the generated vendor scores at the network server, wherein the generated comparison table is configured to be displayed on the GUI
(“[0020] In some embodiments, a user may be able to select desired coverages from a list of recommended coverages. Based on the selection, various embodiments of this disclosure may provide premium and coverage comparisons from multiple insurance companies, and may offer comparisons where coverages may be offered in one or more countries. The user may then be offered the option of choosing the desired insurance policies, select insurance agents associated with the insurance companies and/or purchase one policy or multiple policies at the same time. Furthermore, an insurance coverage recommendation report and multiple policy comparisons may be presented to the user”).
(“[0023] the user in some embodiments may be presented with a comparison report of premiums and coverages of multiple policies from multiple insurance companies that meet the need of the consumer… Based on the data gathered during the interview process and the user's selection, insurance companies that do not offer the type of coverage required or that provide inferior coverage are automatically rejected, and in some embodiments the user may elect to be informed of the reason for rejection. In some embodiments, once the user selects the desired coverage, lists of policy forms and a comparison of policy forms may also be presented for those policies. The user in some embodiments may then choose an insurance company from which to purchase insurance. In addition, various embodiments of this disclosure may propose lists of insurance agents associated with the insurance company based upon certain criteria such as city state or zip code, or a professional designation, years of experienced, on-line reviews, multiple company appointments, for example Travelers AND The Hartford AND Aetna, association memberships, and the like”).
See also FIG. 18, recommended policies, vendor, rank/priority
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Mdeway discloses
wherein the set of viability factors include at least one of relevance of vendor products to the selected solution, history of performance, overall price, availability of discounts
(“[0020] In some embodiments, a user may be able to select desired coverages from a list of recommended coverages. Based on the selection, various embodiments of this disclosure may provide premium and coverage comparisons from multiple insurance companies, and may offer comparisons where coverages may be offered in one or more countries. The user may then be offered the option of choosing the desired insurance policies, select insurance agents associated with the insurance companies and/or purchase one policy or multiple policies at the same time. Furthermore, an insurance coverage recommendation report and multiple policy comparisons may be presented to the user”).
(“[0023] the user in some embodiments may be presented with a comparison report of premiums and coverages of multiple policies from multiple insurance companies that meet the need of the consumer… Based on the data gathered during the interview process and the user's selection, insurance companies that do not offer the type of coverage required or that provide inferior coverage are automatically rejected, and in some embodiments the user may elect to be informed of the reason for rejection. In some embodiments, once the user selects the desired coverage, lists of policy forms and a comparison of policy forms may also be presented for those policies. The user in some embodiments may then choose an insurance company from which to purchase insurance. In addition, various embodiments of this disclosure may propose lists of insurance agents associated with the insurance company based upon certain criteria such as city state or zip code, or a professional designation, years of experienced, on-line reviews, multiple company appointments, for example Travelers AND The Hartford AND Aetna, association memberships, and the like”).
See also FIG. 18, recommended policies, vendor, rank/priority
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Mdeway discloses
in response to selecting a vendor from the comparison table, presenting a vendor page on the GUI.
See FIG. 9, vendor page
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Mdeway discloses
wherein the vendor page includes one or more of an overview of vendor products and services, available discounts, and contact information
See FIG. 9, vendor page
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Samuels (20160078551) teaches method and system for generating and distributing optimized life insurance packages and visual representations.
Devereaux (10679296) teaches systems and methods for determining insurance coverage based on informatics.
Syed (8666788) teaches systems and methods for facilitating an insurance marketplace for negotiations among brokers and insurance carriers.
Kalinski (20220374797) teaches risk probability assessment for cargo shipment operations and methods of use thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights