DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA 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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed June 17, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
The Examiner has identified independent Claim 16 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 1.
The claims 1-20 are directed to a system which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 16 recites : memory; machine-readable instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to: ingest one or more standard market insurance policy documents; extract structured policy data from the one or more standard market insurance policy documents; implement a validation engine configured to facilitate review, correction, and approval of the structured policy data; implement an interactive discussion session associated with the structured policy data, the interactive discussion session configured to enable a user of the system to query an artificial intelligence model in relation to the structured policy data, the artificial intelligence model configured to implement a conversational artificial intelligence framework; generate a captive insurance policy proposal based on the structured policy data; implement an interactive adjustment session associated with the captive insurance policy proposal, the interactive adjustment session configured to enable the user to review, adjust, and approve one or more parameters associated with the captive insurance policy proposal, the one or more parameters including at least one of a liability limit amount, a premium amount, a surplus amount, a reinsurance amount, or an investment rate included in the captive insurance policy proposal; implement one or more client engagement features configured to facilitate generation of an email that includes the captive insurance policy proposal as an attachment thereto, the one or more client engagement features further configured to facilitate delivery of the email to a client; and implement a graphical user interface including a dashboard having one or more dashboard layers, the dashboard including: a first area configured to enable the user to invoke the ingestion of the one or more standard market insurance policy documents; a second area configured to enable user interaction with the validation engine to facilitate review, correction, and approval of the structured policy data; a third area configured to enable user interaction with the interactive discussion session; a fourth area configured to enable the user to invoke the generation of the captive insurance policy proposal; a fifth area configured to enable user interaction with the interactive adjustment session to facilitate review, adjustment, and approval of the one or more parameters of the captive insurance policy proposal; a sixth area configured to enable the user to invoke the implementation of the one or more client engagement features; and a seventh area configured to enable the user to input one or more client engagement details associated with the one or more client engagement features, the one or more client engagement details including at least one of a client email address, an email delivery date, or a reminder date. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as Fundamental economic principles or practices or a Commercial or legal interaction. Generating the captive insurance policy proposal is a Fundamental Economic Practice. The claim also recites additional elements (as shown above in italics) which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, the recited additional elements (as shown above in italics), nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 16 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of memory, machine-readable instructions, “one or more processors configured to execute the machine-readable instructions”, “a validation engine configured to facilitate review, correction, and approval of the structured policy data”, the system, “the artificial intelligence model configured to implement a conversational artificial intelligence framework” and “a graphical user interface including a dashboard having one or more dashboard layers” result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements as described above to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, [0061], [0120], [0126]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements (as shown above in italics) are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar analysis can he extended to other independent claim 1 and hence the claim 1 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 16.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2, 3 and 20 recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1 and 16 and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of a first dashboard layer and a second dashboard layer of the dashboard. A first dashboard layer and a second dashboard layer of the dashboard are recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in their ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of a third dashboard layer of the dashboard. A third dashboard layer of the dashboard are recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its’ ordinary capacity and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claim 20 recites the additional element of “the knowledge graph including a plurality of entity classes structured as nodes and a plurality of relations structured as edges”. “The knowledge graph including a plurality of entity classes structured as nodes and a plurality of relations structured as edges” amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible.
No Prior Art Rejections
3. Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20. While some individual features of claims 1-20 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 1-20. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are :
1) Dubeau (US 2016/0125543 A1) – The invention relates generally to computer systems and software that implement algorithms and other operations for combining electronic life insurance policy accounts and self-directed investment accounts. The life insurance platform maintains a life insurance policy associated with a cash value back by investment assets. That platform can also provide an interface for providing information related to the user-directed investment account while also providing information related to the life insurance policy.
2) Mitchell (US 10535104 B1) - The invention relates generally to automatically generate insurance policy data and/or update insurance policies. More particularly, methods and systems are provided to automatically generate insurance policy data and/or update insurance policies based upon life events and/or life event data. The life events and/or life event data may be representative of personal changes and/or life events related to an insured person.
3) Kilpatrick (US 8849684 B1) – The invention relates to a coverage management system that enables an insurance agent and an insured party to engage in a streamlined insurance procurement process. The coverage management system facilitates generation of interactive insurance-related documents, provides mechanisms to interact with the documents, and optimizes agent-insured interaction via the insurance-related documents.
Examiner Request
4. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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.
/BHAVIN D SHAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights