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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1, 2, and 7-10 of the “RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION” of 10 November 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Response”)..
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
The IDS submitted on 14 January 2026 also is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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, 2, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “method” of claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “non-transitory recording medium” of claim 9 constitutes a manufacture under the statute, and the “apparatus” of claim 10 constitutes a machine under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, and 7-10 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“An information processing method performed ... by a business operator entrusted with an infrastructure development project, the information processing method comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... acquiring contract information on a contract related to a disaster prevention project to develop an infrastructure to reduce a disaster outcome, the contract being an outcome-based contract including a payment condition in which payment is made on a basis of the disaster reduction outcome from an infrastructure owner through the infrastructure from ... the infrastructure owner; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... responsive to the contract information, raising a fund to acquire fund data related to a raised fund and set on a basis of the contract information; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... acquiring probability data, related to a probability of occurrence of damage, from ... a plurality of cases having development costs for infrastructure development projects; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... associating the fund data of the raised fund with discrimination information on the disaster prevention project, wherein the discrimination information includes information that shows the disaster prevention project, and enables discrimination of the disaster prevent project from other projects; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... using ... the probability data, the development costs, a contract period, an amount of money corresponding to a disaster reduction outcome, and the development costs, setting the payment condition related to the payment, the setting including: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... responsive to the contract period and the amount of money corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome, setting a first coefficient applied to an amount of money corresponding to the disaster result and multiplying the amount of money corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome by the first coefficient to determine a first payment to the business operator responsive to damage occurring to the infrastructure during the contract period, wherein the higher the amount of money corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome or the longer the contract period, the lower the first coefficient; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... responsive to the contract period and the development costs, setting a second coefficient on a basis of at least the contract period and the development cost and multiplying the development cost by the second coefficient to determine a second payment to the business operator responsive to damage occurring to the infrastructure during the contract period, wherein the higher the development cost or the longer the contract period, the lower the second coefficient; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... further setting the first coefficient or the second coefficient, wherein the longer the contract period and/or the higher the probability of occurrence of damage, the lower the first and/or second coefficient, and wherein the shorter the contract period and/or the lower the probability of occurrence of damage, the higher the first and/or second coefficient; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... the method further comprising: responsive to satisfaction of the payment condition in the outcome-based contract, receiving, from ... the infrastructure owner, payment data showing that the payment has been made to a fund providing source, the payment calculated based on the first and/or second coefficient and an evaluation result of the disaster reduction outcome, wherein the evaluation result is evaluated by an evaluating organization responsive to a disaster occurring within the contract period.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risks of disasters and risks associated with funding disaster mitigation projects, and also including insuring against said risks, and also including defining contract terms and payouts; commercial interactions, including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations associated with contracts, sales activities in terms of selling disaster mitigation solutions, and business relations between business operators and infrastructure owners; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, associated with contracting between people and facilitating cooperation for disaster mitigation projects, all of which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “acquiring” and “receiving” steps), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “responsive to,” “associating,” “using,” and “setting” steps), all of which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “information processing method” is performed “by an information processing apparatus used by” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “payment is made” via “another information processing apparatus used by” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “acquiring” is “from a database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “using” pertains to a “machine learning system trained on” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “receiving” is from “the information processing apparatus” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, language specifying that the process steps of virus screening were used within a telephone network or the Internet, because limiting the use of the process to these technological environments did not provide meaningful limits on the claim, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding pending claims 2 and 7-9, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “the business operator further specifies a management destination of the disaster prevention project on a basis of the discrimination information, and transmits the fund data to the management destination” of claim 2, the “transmitting investment information on the fund ..., and acquiring an investment request including an investment amount set on a basis of the investment information ..., and the association of the fund data with the discrimination information includes associating fund data related to each investment amount included in each acquired investment request with the discrimination information” of claim 7, the “wherein the infrastructure includes a structure accompanied by a charge of a rent, the disaster prevention project includes construction related to earthquake resistance, and the contract information includes a payment condition based on a rent income increased due to the earthquake resistance” of claim 8, and the “a business operator entrusted with an infrastructure development project to perform the method according to claim 1” of claim 9). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “information processing apparatus” of claim 2, the “another information processing apparatus ... from the other information processing apparatus” of claim 7, and the “non-transitory recording medium storing a program causing an information processing apparatus used by” of claim 9). Accordingly, claims 2 and 7-9 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claim 10, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1 and 9, the claim recites limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 9. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 9 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 10. Claim 10 is, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0410590 A1 to Regmi et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Regmi”), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0034814 A1 to Kinter et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kinter”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,656,923 B1 to Farivar et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Farivar”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Regmi discloses the following limitations:
“An information processing method performed by an information processing apparatus used by a business operator entrusted with an infrastructure development project, the information processing method comprising: ...” - Regmi discloses, “The subject of the invention is the development of methods, apparatus and systems” (para. [0005]), “The parties involved could be (and not limited to) individuals, high net worth individuals, sponsor or sponsors, insurers, syndicate of insurers, investor, syndicate of investors, issuer or issuers, builder or builders, contractor or contractors, farmers, residents, dischargers or polluters, governmental and non-governmental agencies, authority or authorities, public-private partnerships, businesses, developers, regulators or other third parties” (para. [0008]), and “a disaster mitigation project can address/mitigate future damage” (para. [0031]). A method performed by a system used by any of a number of parties (individuals, entities, and the like) in connection with disaster mitigation projects, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... acquiring contract information on a contract related to a disaster prevention project to develop an infrastructure to reduce a disaster outcome, the contract being an outcome-based contract including a payment condition in which payment is made on a basis of the disaster reduction outcome from an infrastructure owner through the infrastructure from another information processing apparatus used by the infrastructure owner; ...” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Regmi also discloses, “The transaction associated with the event or performance is determined by a static or a dynamic (changing) contract or smart contract” (para. [0011]), “The trigger could be a conditional or a contingent payment that could be a single payment or a series of payments that are optionally time based or event occurrence based” (para. [0012]), “a computerized platform” (para. [0017]), “Sponsor: The sponsor is the insurance policy holder or a party (or a SPV/SPA) that needs a project to address a disaster or pollution or a need. Sponsors and/or co-sponsors are responsible for paying premiums or coupons that insure against a disaster” (para. [0056]), “These investors are typically seeking diversification in their portfolios an are willing to take risk (including the risk of losing their principal invested) for returns on investment” and “investors (also called impact investors) can also be entities that are seeking to invest in projects” (para. [0057]), “Each party may have a smart contract or smart regulation associated with their being part of the system. The hierarchy of each clause in a smart contract between two parties affecting other parties can be pre-ascertained” (para. [0075]), and “The user interface and the way traders see the exchange (environmental or energy trading platform and design) from either a computer or a mobile phone is also key” (para. [0088]). Acquiring smart contract clauses and triggers related to disaster mitigation projects, wherein the smart contracts have clauses by which payments, to investors from sponsors, are triggered based on mitigation of disasters, wherein all parties use their own computerized platforms, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... responsive to the contract information, raising a fund to acquire fund data related to a raised fund and set on a basis of the contract information; ...” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Regmi also discloses, “project funded by any financial instrument, bond, fund or annuity (para. [0056]). Following establishing smart contract clauses for projects, the funding of a project by a fund, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... acquiring probability data, related to a probability of occurrence of damage, from ... a plurality of cases having development costs for infrastructure development projects; ...” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Regmi also discloses, “All data and analytics are stored, and all information is retrievable through a historian that records all data and changes made to the data. This data could be information that is associated with manual or automated sensing or from manual or automated analysis. The data can have reliability and probabilistic confidence values” (para. [0013]), “A payout can also be a range based on probabilistic confidence of a likelihood of event occurrence or likelihood of performance achievement” (para. [0014]), and “The accuracy and likelihood of the predictions can also be determined and used with probabilistic estimates and/or confidence intervals” (para. [0047]). Acquiring probabilistic confidence values and probabilistic estimates of likelihoods of event occurrences, including disaster events, that are associated with instances where funds are invested into disaster mitigation projects, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation. Additionally or alternatively, elements in Kinter read on the recited limitation (see below).
“... associating the fund data of the raised fund with discrimination information on the disaster prevention project, wherein the discrimination information includes information that shows the disaster prevention project, and enables discrimination of the disaster prevention project from other projects; and ...” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Regmi also discloses, “establishment of a mitigation project created by the party allotted to and funded by said financial instrument” (para. [0029]). Linking funds in a fund to a specific disaster mitigation project within a smart contract, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation. See also, FIG. 1 of Regmi, which discloses “PROJECTS” identified as either “Wastewater Treatment,” “Flood Mitigation,” “Lake/Beach Cleanup,” “Ground Water Management,” “Micro GRID,” and “ESCO,” which also reads on the recited limitation.
“... using a machine learning system, trained on ... data, ... setting the payment condition related to the payment, the setting including: ...” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Regmi also discloses, “Analytics is the analysis of data and developing trends using different learning or non-learning algorithms that may use priors to develop posteriors and also through deep learning mathematical protocols. These analytics are key to improving the efficiency and reduce transaction risk within the blockchain over time. One approach to the analytics is for example to trigger the building of a higher wall or levee to reduce premiums for a beneficiary subject to flooding. Another approach to analytics is the reverse—an increase in premiums associated with a decrease in performance or an increase in likelihood of an event. Thus, one could have fixed, variable or floating premiums or coupons, fixed and variable/floating payouts based on events and performance that are a basis of analytics performed” (para. [0080]). Using deep learning algorithms that uses priors to develop posteriors, for determining payouts based on events, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... responsive to the contract period and the amount of money corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome, setting a first coefficient applied to an amount of money corresponding to the disaster result and multiplying the amount of money corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome by the first coefficient to determine a first payment to the business operator responsive to damage occurring to the infrastructure during the contract period, wherein the higher the amount of money corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome or the longer the contract period, the lower the first coefficient; ...” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Regmi also discloses, “Payouts can vary based on data quality or a probability associated with a trigger being met. These payouts can be pro-rated or defined in other linear or non-linear, logarithmic or exponential approaches” (para. [0049]), and “FIG. 8 is an overview of how the token valuation can be affected based on scarcity of tokens, beneficiary fee accrued or increase over time, and work (effort) to remove pollutant increasing with time” (para. [0098]). In a situation where a disaster event occurs, pro-rating or otherwise defining payouts using linear, non-linear, logarithmic, or exponential approaches, leading to a first payment being greater or less than other payments as a result, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation. Any increasing or decreasing of a payment amount, whether performed by multiplication or another mathematical step, necessarily covers all mathematical steps that lead to the value of the amount. For example, a value going from “1” to “2” can involve multiplication only, or addition only, and as such, the two steps are equivalents (mathematical equivalents). Additionally or alternatively, FIG. 8 of Regmi discloses graphs for a number of tokens over time for pollution removal, and for a token valuation over time. Taking into account time for pollution removal, in FIG. 8 of Regmi, reads on the recited “responsive to the contract period ... corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome” limitation. Taking into account the tokens, in FIG. 8 of Regmi, reads on the recited “responsive to ... the amount of money corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome” limitation. Setting the token valuation applied to the tokens for pollution removal, in FIG. 8 of Regmi, reads on the recited “setting a first coefficient applied to an amount of money corresponding to the disaster result” limitation. Multiplying the tokens for pollution removal by the token valuation, in FIG. 8 of Regmi, reads on the recited “multiplying the amount of money corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome by the first coefficient to determine a first payment to the business operator responsive to damage occurring in the infrastructure during the contract period” limitation. The tokens for pollution removal being higher while the token valuations are lower, in FIG. 8 of Regmi, reads on the recited “wherein the higher the amount of money corresponding to the disaster reduction outcome ... the lower the first coefficient” limitation. One of ordinary skill would recognize that FIG. 8 is exemplary, and the graphs of tokens v. time and token valuation v. time may be different in one or more ways depending on the specific mitigation project being performed.
“... responsive to the contract period and the development costs, setting a second coefficient on a basis of at least the contract period and the development cost and multiplying the development cost by the second coefficient to determine a second payment to the business operator responsive to damage occurring to the infrastructure during the contract period, wherein the higher the development cost or the longer the contract period, the lower the second coefficient; ...” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. In a situation where a disaster event occurs, pro-rating or otherwise defining payouts using linear, non-linear, logarithmic, or exponential approaches, leading to a second payment being greater or less than a first payment or a third payment as a result, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation. Also see the explanation about mathematical equivalents in the immediately preceding bullet point. Additionally or alternatively, see the explanation about the tokens per pollution removal and token valuation graphs in FIG. 8 of Regmi in the preceding bullet point.
“... further setting the first coefficient or the second coefficient, wherein the longer the contract period and/or the higher the probability of occurrence of damage, the lower the first and/or second coefficient, and wherein the shorter the contract period and/or the lower the probability of occurrence of damage, the higher the first and/or second coefficient; and ...” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Pro-rating or otherwise defining a payout using linear, non-linear, logarithmic, or exponential approaches, resulting in a payout have higher or lower values over a time period for payment, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation. Also see the explanations the examiner provided about mathematical equivalents in preceding bullet points. Additionally or alternatively, see the explanation about the tokens per pollution removal and token valuation graphs in FIG. 8 of Regmi in preceding bullet points.
“... the method further comprising: responsive to satisfaction of the payment condition in the outcome-based contract, receiving, from the information processing apparatus of the infrastructure owner, payment data showing that the payment has been made to a fund providing source, the payment calculated based on the first and/or second coefficient and an evaluation result of the disaster reduction outcome, wherein the evaluation result is evaluated by an evaluating organization responsive to a disaster occurring within the contract period.” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Regmi also discloses, “The trigger could be a conditional or a contingent payment that could be a single payment or a series of payments that are optionally time based or event occurrence” (para. [0012]), which reads on the recited “responsive to satisfaction of the payment condition” limitation. Regmi also discloses, “where a payout is triggered on the blockchain” (para. [0029]), which reads on the recited “from the information processing apparatus of the infrastructure owner,” at least due to access to the blockchain by the parties of interest (see para. [0055] of Regmi). Regmi also discloses, “The blockchain can comprise one or more digital storage databases for housing one or more computer models and/or one or more financial instrument transactions” (para. [0083]). Records of payment transactions on the blockchain read on the recited “payment data showing that the payment has been made to a fund providing source” limitation. Regmi also discloses, “financial transaction management system to facilitate the evaluation and/or resulting payout” (para. [0006]), “this algorithm can be simple or layered or nested in a way that the payouts or transactions could occur in installments associated with a single event or performance, or multiple events and performance over multiple space or time thresholds” (para. [0011]), and “Additional parties could include third party agents and verifiers,” “a third-party providing data and information on weather or pollutant” and “An example is information of a type of hurricane” (para. [0077]). Obtaining, from a computerized platform of a sponsor, a payment amount based on using linear, non-linear, logarithmic, or exponential approaches, and data about mitigation, wherein the disaster and mitigation information is evaluated by a third party verifier, and all occurs for events happening within time thresholds, in Regmi, reads on the recited “the payment calculated based on the first and/or second coefficient and an evaluation result of the disaster reduction outcome, wherein the evaluation result is evaluated by an evaluating organization responsive to a disaster occurring within the contract period” limitation.
The combination of Regmi and Kinter (hereinafter referred to as “Regmi/Kinter”) teaches limitations below of independent claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Regmi:
The claimed “acquiring” is from “a database” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Kinter discloses, “at least one of those computing devices is running a historian program that is used for the analysis and/or modeling of data” (para. [0059]), and “uploading data regarding said analytics to one or more storage databases, or uploading data regarding said analytics in determining the management of one or more financial instruments, to one or more storage databases” (para. [0075]). Operation of the historian, in Regmi, wherein the historian can be a program that accesses data from databases, as in Kinter, reads on the recited limitation. Additionally or alternatively, per the comments above in the section focusing on Regmi, Kinter also discloses, “Probability of an event occurring during time t 0.02% p.sub.o Probability of 0 events occurring during time T (1 − p).sup.k 48% p.sub.x Probability of x events occurring during time T (.sub.kC.sub.x)p.sup.r(1 − p).sup.k−x For x = 2, 13% p.sub.d Probability of at least one event occurring during time T 1 − p.sub.0” (Table 1), which reads on the full “acquiring probability data, related to a probability of occurrence of damage, from a database comprising a plurality of cases having development costs for infrastructure development projects” limitation.
Kinter discloses, “using financial instruments to provide investment incentive to fund disaster mitigation projects and/or ecosystem restoration projects triggered by real world events” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Regmi. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system, in Regmi, to include databases for storing data, including probability data, as in Kinter, as databases are well-known, conventional hardware for storage, as taught by Kinter (see para. [0075]).
The combination of Regmi, Kinter, and Farivar (hereinafter referred to as “Regmi/Kinter/Farivar”) teaches limitations below of independent claim 1 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Regmi/Kinter:
The claimed “machine learning system” is one “trained on the probability data, the development costs, a contract period, an amount of money corresponding to a disaster reduction outcome, and the development costs” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been cited above. Regmi also discloses, “probability” (para. [0013]), “capital cost” (para. [0059]), “The trigger could be a conditional or a contingent payment that could be a single payment or a series of payments that are optionally time based or event occurrence based” (para. [0012]), and “payout and/or assessment of fixed or variable premium or coupon or other forms of credit or debt-transactions associated with an event or performance or warranty or parameter in an environmental or energy or nature-based event or performance of associated infrastructure or insurance or warranty management system” (para. [0006]), in association with “Payment to investors is processed through smart contracts. Once a claim for performance is placed, subsequent verification triggers an automated payment and updates the investment landscape to reflect the portion of the goal that was achieved. This update implies retiring options no longer available and enabling others that became possible due previous accomplishments. Verification of the claims is automated in the platform based on performance data collected through sensors and from manual data gathering later uploaded to the platform. Performance metrics depend on the type of technology” (para. [0043]). The various forms of data associated with smart contracts, in Regmi, read on the recited “the probability data, the development costs, a contract period, an amount of money corresponding to a disaster reduction outcome, and the development costs” limitation. While Regmi also discloses using priors to develop posteriors, which suggests training, Regmi does not explicitly describe training in association with the use of deep learning. Farivar, on the other hand, discloses, “The method may include receiving first training data including one or more positive smart contracts (e.g., having one or more positive sections) that comply with one or more regulations, and converting the one or more positive sections into a first set of intermediate representation of code. The method may also include receiving second training data including one or more negative smart contracts (e.g., having one or more negative sections) that do not comply with one or more regulations, and converting the one or more negative sections into a second set of intermediate representation of code. The method may further include training a neural network (NN) to classify smart contract sections based on the first and second sets of intermediate representation of code” (col. 2, ll. 15-29). Using priors to develop posteriors for the deep learning, in Regmi, by training the machine learning using training data including smart contract sections, as in Farivar, wherein the smart contract sections are associated with probability values, capital costs, time based triggers, and payment amounts, as in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation.
Farivar discloses “determining regulatory compliance of smart contracts” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Regmi/Kinter. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the deep learning and smart contract aspects, of Regmi/Kinter, to include the machine learning training on smart contract sections, of Farivar, to prepare the machine learning for analyzing received smart contracts and for making determinations about them, as taught by Farivar (see col. 2, ll. 15-29).
Regarding claim 2, Regmi/Kinter/Farivar teaches the following limitations:
“The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus used by the business operator further specifies a management destination of the disaster prevention project on a basis of the discrimination information, and transmits the fund data to the management destination.” - See the aspects of Regmi that have been mentioned above. Regmi also discloses, “the reduction of a hazard (increase in resilience) and its benefits can also be converted into cash-flow for bond payouts. These can be triggers in smart contracts that can result in cash flowing to escrows, wallets or collateral accounts” (para. [0072]). An investor using a computerized platform or dashboard to establish escrows, wallets, or collateral accounts for acts that reduce hazards, based on reduction of hazards and associated benefits, and the resultant cash flows to the escrows, wallets, or collateral accounts, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Regmi/Kinter/Farivar teaches the following limitations:
“The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition of the fund data includes transmitting investment information on the fund to another information processing apparatus, and acquiring an investment request including an investment amount set on a basis of the investment information from the other information processing apparatus, and the association of the fund data with the discrimination information includes associating fund data related to each investment amount included in each acquired investment request with the discrimination information.” - Regmi discloses, “The trigger is a pre-specified event (such as the ratio of a SPV's (or exchange assets) equity to risk-weighted assets falling below a predetermined percentage) causing the conversion process, and the conversion rate is the actual rate at which debt is swapped for equity. The trigger needs to be defined in a way of ensuring automatic and inviolable conversion at different pre-specified event thresholds within a smart contract” (para. [0071]), and “a bank 210 will issue a bond request for one or more investment options 230, and one or more investors 220 will select the token or non-tokenized investment option including but not limited to a Restoration Bond, Resilience Bond or other bond with differing coupon rates, maturity dates and one or more trigger options 215. In an ongoing monitoring approach 235 typically a bank and one or more investors issue a loan disbursement 240 which is controlled via a smart contract 250 which authorizes completion based on one or more trigger options 245 only if it meets the conditions 255 triggering an alert 260 to a bank and or regulator. In a conditional repayment approach 265 a bank or one or more investors issues a smart contract to the other party 280 which may be another bank, or another group of investors, based on monitoring and discretionary input 270 from a bank or regulatory institution” (para. [0092]). The banks sending smart contracts including conversion (e.g., conditional repayment) and event threshold information to investors, including other banks, as a result of trigger options for loan disbursement controlled by their own smart contracts, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Regmi/Kinter/Farivar teaches the following limitations:
“A non-transitory recording medium storing program causing an information processing apparatus used by a business operator entrusted with an infrastructure development project to perform the method according to claim 1.” - While claim 9 is of different scope relative to claim 1, the claim recites limitations from claim 1. As such, claim 9 is rejected, in view of the combination of Regmi, Kinter, and Farivar, at least for the same reasons as claim 1. Limitations of claim 9 that do not appear to have a counterpart in claim 1, such as the recited “non-transitory recording medium storing program causing an information processing apparatus used by a business operator entrusted with an infrastructure development project” limitation, are disclosed by Regmi (see the “computerized platform” (Regmi, para. [0017]), “digital platforms” (para. [0018]), “dashboard” for investors (para. [0044]), “sponsors” and “investors” (paras. [0056] and [0057]), and “software application residing in RAM memory” (Regmi, para. [0100])). Claim 9 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of the combination of Regmi, Kinter, and Farivar.
Regarding claim 10, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1 and 9, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1 and 9. As such, claim 10 is rejected, in view of the combination of Regmi, Kinter, and Farivar, at least for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9. Claim 10 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of the combination of Regmi, Kinter, and Farivar.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regmi, in view of Kinter, further in view of Farivar, and further in view of Smith, James. “How much money is my landlord making ...” Quora, 2019 (last accessed on 27 June 2024 at https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-is-my-landlord-making-if-I-pay-him-1500-rent-each-month-and-the-apartment-costs-100-000-to-buy-Is-the-rent-justified) (hereinafter referred to as “Smith/Quora”).
Regarding claim 8, Regmi/Kinter/Farivar teaches the following limitations:
“The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the infrastructure includes a structure ..., the disaster prevention project includes construction related to earthquake resistance, and the contract information includes a payment condition based on a ... income increased due to the earthquake resistance.” - Regmi discloses, “We propose as a novel invention, a ‘Surance Bond’ or a SPV or analogous financial risk management instrument” and “to encourage the building of pollution mitigation or climate change adaptation infrastructure” (para. [0066]), “A REIT is a company that owns and typically operates income-producing real estate and could be structured as a SPV. These assets could include office buildings, apartments” and “They do provide a mechanism for crowd-funding community ownership of local property however, and in some cases could be instrumental in providing environmental change” (para. [0069]), “Real estate funds can directly invest in assets such as commercial properties, land, apartment complexes, and agricultural space. Real estate funds gain value mostly through appreciation and generally do not provide short-term income to investors the same way that REITs might. The investments for either the REIT or Real estate funds can be made through a trust directly or via Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV)” (para. [0070]), “earthquake protection infrastructure performance” (para. [0161], “earthquakes or fire or associated infrastructure” (para. [0172]), and “associated beneficiary payments accrued from decrease in insurance costs” (para. [0195]). The improvement projects being targeted at improving earthquake protection infrastructure performance of apartments, resulting in decreased in insurance costs, in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Regmi, Kinter, Farivar, and Smith/Quora teaches limitations below of claim 8 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Regmi/Kinter/Farivar:
The claimed “structure” is “accompanied by a charge of a rent” - While Regmi describes improving earthquake protection infrastructure performance of apartments, (see above), Regmi does not appear to explicitly link the apartments to charging of rents. Smith/Quora teaches, “$1500 rent” for an “apartment” (p. 1). The charging of rents, per Smith/Smith/Quora, for apartments in Regmi, reads on the recited limitation.
The claimed “income” is “rent income” - While Regmi describes improving earthquake protection infrastructure performance of apartments, resulting in decreased in insurance costs (see above), Regmi does not appear to explicitly link the apartments to charging of rents. Smith/Quora teaches, “$1500 rent” for an “apartment” and “monthly expenses” including forms of “insurance” (p. 1). With respect to decreasing insurance costs for apartments, of Regmi, such decreasing allows apartment owners to keep more of the rent collected, per Smith/Quora, which reads on the recited limitation.
Smith/Quora teaches economic considerations associated with infrastructure including apartments (see p. 1), similar to the claimed invention and to Regmi/Kinter/Farivar. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the handling of apartments, of Regmi, to include collecting of rents, as in Smith/Quora, so owners can cover expenses to generate profits, as taught by Smith/Quora (see p. 1). Alternatively, Smith/Quora is not so much modifying Regmi, but instead showing that apartments like those in Regmi involve rent collection, per Smith/Quora.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 7-9 of the Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. More specifically, the applicant argues that language in the specification, with prior references to databases and a plurality of cases, indicates training and/or retraining of the recited machine learning system to provide more accurate calculations, and this improvement warrants eligibility in accordance with the Office’s 04 August 2025 memorandum. The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. It is unclear where the specification describes, or event suggests, any improvement to training or retraining a machine learning system. The paragraphs highlighted by the applicant’s arguments appear to describe using a machine learning model to calculate coefficients (see Specification, para. [0059]), not improving the training or retraining of a machine learning model. Thus, neither the specification nor the claims establishes an eligibility-warranting improvement. Further, it is the examiner’s view that training a machine learning model on specific types of data does not improve machine learning. All machine learning models are trained on training data, which is different in different scenarios. A machine learning model being trained on contract information, a machine learning model being trained on banking information, or a machine learning model being trained on rideshare information, makes no difference with respect to eligibility. A machine learning model is conventional (or operates conventionally) regardless of the field of use or technological environment from which training data for the machine learning model is obtained.
On pp. 9 and 10 of the Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 USC 103. More specifically, the applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10. The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive, per the explanations provided in the 35 USC 103 section above. As for the key new limitations added to the independent claims by the Response, the examiner points to the portions of the explanations above that discuss the tokens v. time and token valuations v. time graphs in FIG. 8 of Regmi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0161859 A1 to Baumgartner et al. discloses, “capturing country-specific parameters of a risk-exposed country relating to stored predefined criteria, assigning one or more disaster event types to a disaster history table, capturing and storing mapping parameters for a geographic risk map, assigning each of a plurality of selectable disaster financing types to a definable cost factor capturing the capital cost of the disaster financing type in relation to its application for disaster mitigation, determining expected catastrophe losses by a loss frequency function and the geographic risk map for various scenarios of occurring natural disaster event types, and preparing a forecast of an effect of the disaster financing type to cover the catastrophe losses based on the coverage structure, the assigned cost factors, and the determined expected catastrophe losses.” (Abstract.)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624