Ex Parte Kiper et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 22, 2019

13940679 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/940,679 07/12/2013 116886 7590 04/24/2019 Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (State Farm) 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Willis Tower Chicago, IL 60606-6357 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Timothy Kiper UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 32060/47498 8644 EXAMINER OYEBISI, OJO 0 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3697 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): mgbdocket@marshallip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY KIPER, ERIC ST ANIAK, MATTHEW CUTTELL, JOSH SCHWARTZ, AMY ENGELHORN, JENNIFER HUFFMAN, RHONDA BENTER, AMY SCHMIDT, STACY WHITMER, MATT J. SCHROEDER and KATHRYNE. KNARR Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 Technology Center 3600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVINE. BRANCH and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2. Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 Introduction "The present disclosure generally relates to insurance price quotes and, more particularly, to processes for obtaining insurance price quotes." Specification ,r 1. Representative Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for integrating cost estimates in an insurance price quote process, the method comprising: displaying, with one or more computer processors, one or more questions via a graphical user interface (GUI) on an end user device, wherein the one or more questions relate to identifying an insurable asset; receiving, via the computer network, an identification of an insurable asset in response to answers to the one or more questions; displaying, with the one or more computer processors, quote process information via the GUI on the end user device, wherein the quote process information relates to cost estimation associated with the insurable asset, and wherein displaying the quote process information includes displaying, based upon respective user input received in accordance with presented interactive content: (i) educational videos, (ii) information distinguishing various types of cost estimates, (iii) customer specific recommendations, (iv) insurable asset specific recommendations, (v) a selectable option to enter a professional cost estimate, and (vi) a selectable option to obtain an approximate price quote; 2 Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 receiving, via the computer network, data indicative of a customer selection to launch a cost estimation interface on the end user device, wherein the cost estimation interface generates a cost estimate via communication with a cost estimation server, responsive to receiving the indication of the customer selection, automatically querying, via the one or more computer processors, a database containing a plurality of customer information to retrieve information relating to the insurable asset; when the plurality of customer information includes information relating to the insurable asset, sending, via the computer network, the information relating to the insurable asset to the cost estimation server; calculating, via the cost estimation server, a cost estimate based upon (i) the identification of the insurable asset, (ii) the information relating to the insurable asset, and (iii) user input provided via customer interaction with the cost estimation interface; displaying, with the one or more computer processors, the cost estimation interface via the GUI on the end user device; receiving the cost estimate from the cost estimation server; and displaying, with the one or more computer processors, the cost estimate and further quote process information via the GUI on the end user device. 3 Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 Rejection on Appeal2 Claims 1-7, 1-16, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Action 4--8. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 30, 2017), the Reply Brief (March 8, 2018), the Final Action (mailed October 18, 2017) and the Answer (mailed January 19, 2018), for the respective details. The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea comprising a fundamental economic practice, a certain method of organizing human activity, and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Action 2-5; see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014) ( describing the two-step framework "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts"). After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this case, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application ofÂ§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter "Memorandum"). Under the Memorandum, the Office first looks to whether the claim recites: 2 The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 was withdrawn. Answer 3. 4 Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP Â§ 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. 2018). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP Â§ 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum. We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own. We add the following primarily for emphasis and clarification with respect to the Memorandum. Appellants argue the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they address "a specifically-identified problem in the art [in] that the completion of an insurance application by a homeowner may be prolonged or prevented due to the customer's confusion, requiring the need for direct aid from an insurance agent." Appeal Brief 11. We agree with the Examiner's determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. See Final Action 4--8. The Specification discloses: 5 Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 [ A ]computer-implemented method for integrating cost estimates in a insurance price quote process comprises causing one or more questions to be displayed to a customer on an end user device, wherein the one or more questions relate to identifying an insurable asset. Further the computer-implemented method includes receiving, via the computer network, an identification of an insurable asset in response to the one or more questions, causing quote process information to be displayed to the customer on the end user device, wherein the quote process information relates to cost estimation, and receiving, via the computer network, an indication of a customer choice to launch a cost estimation interface on the end user device, wherein the cost estimation interface is used to generate a cost estimate via communication with a cost estimation server. Specification ,r 4. Claim 1 recites "A computer-implemented method for integrating cost estimates in an insurance price quote process," "one or more questions via a graphical user interface (GUI) on an end user device, wherein the one or more questions relate to identifying an insurable asset," "an identification of an insurable asset in response to answers to the one or more questions," "the quote process information relates to cost estimation associated with the insurable asset," "calculating, via the cost estimation server, a cost estimate based upon (i) the identification of the insurable asset, (ii) the information relating to the insurable asset, and (iii) user input provided via customer interaction with the cost estimation interface." These steps comprise fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions; thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of "certain methods of organizing human activity." Memorandum, Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas); see Specification ,r,r 4--6. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. See Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in 6 Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk .... "); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claims directed to abstract idea of processing loan information through a clearinghouse); Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims reciting "generalized software components arranged to implement an abstract concept [ of generating insurance-policy-related tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event] on a computer" not patent eligible). Therefore, we conclude the claims recite an abstract idea pursuant to Step 2A, Prong One of the guidance. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(l) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception). Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, our analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are "additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." See MPEP Â§ 2106.05(a)--(c), (e)--(h). Appellants argue, "[T]he recited claim features are specifically targeted to addressing the aforementioned problems associated with completing insurance applications, and do so using a specific GUI structure." Appeal Brief 12. The Specification discloses, "the end user device 102 is capable of executing a graphical interface (GUI) for [an] insurance product price quote process within a web browser application, such as Apple's SafariÂ®, Google Androidâ„¢ mobile web browser, Microsoft Internet ExplorerÂ®, etc." Specification ,r 19. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the claims utilize a computer system, including a generic GUI, merely as a tool to generate price quotes for insurance products. See Specification ,r,r 19-29; see also Enfish, LLC v. 7 Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea ... the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool."). Accordingly, we determine the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and thus are directed to a judicial exception. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(2) (Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application). Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). Appellants argue: Appellant's claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea because the combination of steps constitute a nonconventional and non-generic arrangement of various processes, even assuming that these processes are executed via known, conventional elements. That is, it is the precise combination of how Appellant's processes are performed together that 1s responsible for the improvement in this technological field. Appeal Brief 16. Appellants further contend, "Appellant's independent claims are directed is necessarily rooted in computer technology used to identify insured assets and to calculate a replacement cost using a specific 8 Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 combination of data sources and data queries." Appeal Brief 16. Appellants argue, "Appellant's calculation of a cost estimate is performed via a cost estimate server implementing network communications, and is likewise necessarily rooted in computer technology despite being implemented on a remote computer." Appeal Brief 16. Appellants conclude: Appellant's automated network processes represent an improvement in technology directed to the identification of an insured asset and the calculation of the identified asset's estimated replacement cost. The claimed solution is therefore necessarily rooted in computer technology because this process not only utilizes automated querying and calculation processes to improve upon the accuracy of cost estimate calculations, but advantageously implements this procedure via automated communications among networked computing devices. Thus, because these features significantly improve upon issues introduced using traditional methods of identifying and estimating the cost of insured assets, Appellant's independent claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea alleged in the Final Action. Appeal Brief 1 7. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of Examiner error. We find the claims do not includes a specific limitation or a combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See Memorandum, Section III(B) (Step 2B: If the Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept); see Final Action 4--5 ("The examiner contends that the recited 'processor['], 'computer network' and 'database' are recited at a high level of generality to simply perform the generic computer functions of receiving, processing, calculating, transmitting displaying information."); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 ("In holding that the process was patent ineligible, we 9 Appeal2018-004073 Application 13/940,679 rejected the argument that 'implement[ing] a principle in some specific fashion' will 'automatically fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of Â§ 101. "' (alterations in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978))). Accordingly, we conclude that claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-21, argued together (see Appeal Brief 11 ), are directed to a fundamental economic practice, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Memorandum and thus an abstract idea, and those claims do not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. We sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 101 rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-21. DECISION The Examiner's non-statutory subject matter rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-21 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(v). AFFIRMED 10