The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 08/22/2024, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 18643647.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 04/23/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 18643647 filed 04/23/2024 is a Continuation of 17226617, filed 04/09/2021, now U.S. Patent # 11995594 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein; 17226617 is a Continuation in Part of 15766499 , filed 04/06/2018, now abandoned; 15766499 is a National Stage entry of PCT/AU2016/050946, International Filing Date: 10/07/2016; PCT/AU2016/050946 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62365360 , filed 07/21/2016; claims foreign priority to 2015904128, filed 10/09/2015.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 13-14 introduce statutory classes other than those statutory classes from which they depend which improperly confuses statutory classes and therefore fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. In maintaining distinct statutory classes that particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, Examiner interprets the following claims as:
Claim 13. [The method of claim 12 further comprising a] non-transitory computer readable medium with program code stored thereon
Claim 14. [The system of claim 1 further comprising a] computer network for processing technical process data, the computer network comprising:a computer system
As per claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation "Claim 18. The computer system of claim 18, wherein….” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 18 is dependent on itself. Examiner interprets as claim 18 being dependent on claim 17.
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 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In adhering to the 2019 PEG, Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, the claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
an input port to receive technical process data from multiple technical process experts on a dynamic basis, wherein the technical process data relates to a technical an impact of one or more physical events on a continuity of multiple technical operations;a database to store the technical process data; a processor configured to: validate the technical process data against a business impact analysis standard;andto determine a monetary value indicative of the technical impact and reflecting a cost associated with the technical impact.consolidate the technical process data into the database;bundle the technical process data to determine a risk exposure;receive a continuous feed of updates of the technical process data from one or more sensors that monitor the technical operation;dynamically evaluate and monitor the technical process data to maintain the technical process data on a regular basis through one or more communication channels, wherein the processing of the technical process data maintains a link between the risk exposure and the technical process data received from the one or more sensors that monitor the technical operation and update the technical process data in real-time; andupdate a continuity plan corresponding to the risk exposure,wherein the processor is further configured to validate transactions based on the technical process data updated in real time to facilitate the update of the continuity plan and to reflect the impact of changes to the continuity of the multiple technical operations.
[or]
receiving the technical process data from multiple technical process experts on a dynamic basis, wherein the technical process data relates to a technical impact of one or more physical events on a continuity of multiple technical operations; storing the technical process data on a database; validating the technical process data against a business impact analysis standard; consolidating the technical process data into the database; determining an aggregate value of the multiple technical operations based on the technical process data; calculating an insurance premium based on the technical process data; bundling the technical process data through one or more instruments or financial derivatives for primary or secondary trading of a traded risk; receiving a continuous feed of updates of the technical process data from one or more sensors that monitor the technical operation; dynamically evaluating and monitoring the technical process data to maintain the technical process data on a regular basis through one or more communication channels, wherein the processing of the technical process data maintains a link between the traded risk and the technical process data received from monitoring devices that monitor the technical operation and update the technical process data in real-time; andupdating an underwriting contract or cover of insurance to transfer the traded risk in the multiple technical operations, wherein: the underwriting contract or cover of insurance comprises a self-executing contract, the method further comprises validating transactions based on the technical process data updated in real time to facilitate the settlement of the self- executing contract and to reflect the impact of changes to the continuity of the multiple technical operations, and the self-executing contract provides an interface that allows other contracts to send a message to that contract and get back a response that provides the insurance premium based on the technical process data updated in real time.
[or]
A non-transitory computer readable medium with program code stored thereon that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the method of claim 12.
[or]
A computer network for processing technical process data, the computer network comprising:a computer system according to claim 1; multiple client computer systems, each comprising: a processor to generate a user interface for receiving technical process data that relates to a technical impact of one or more physical events on a continuity of a technical operation; and a data port to send the technical process data to the computer system according to claim 1.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The computer, processor and/or database memory medium is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic computer, processor and/or database memory medium limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, determine a monetary value indicative of the technical impact and reflecting a cost associated with the technical impact is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: computer, processor and database memory medium. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, determine a monetary value indicative of the technical impact and reflecting a cost associated with the technical impact is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0031 wherein processor 102 determines the technical process data and stores the technical process data in data memory 106, such as RAM or a processor register. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims including claims 7-8 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Particularly claims 7-8 use the previously recited processor for physically presenting the data, e.g., processor for displaying data. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swahn (US 20090177500 A1) hereinafter referred to as Swahn in view of Schmeling et al. (US 20180096175 A1) hereinafter referred to as Schmeling.
Swahn teaches:
Claim 1. A computer system for processing technical process data, the computer system comprising:
an input port to receive technical process data from multiple technical process experts on a dynamic basis, wherein the technical process data relates to a technical an impact of one or more physical events on a continuity of multiple technical operations (¶0022 Yet another feature of the system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment is its ability to enable a property loss engineer to input numerical property loss ratings for each subsystem or sub-area and have such information stored and available to other users on a remotely accessible server or system or via the Internet.);
a database to store the technical process data; a processor configured to: validate the technical process data against a business impact analysis standard;andto determine a monetary value indicative of the technical impact and reflecting a cost associated with the technical impact consolidate the technical process data into the database (¶0056 Computer programming for implementing the present invention may be written in various programming languages, such as conventional C calling, database languages such as Oracle or .NET. However, it is understood that other source or object oriented programming languages, and other conventional programming language may be utilized without departing from the spirit and intent of the present invention. ¶0057 Referring now to FIG. 1, there is illustrated a block diagram of a computer system 10 that provides a suitable environment for implementing embodiments of the present invention. The computer architecture shown in FIG. 1 is divided into two parts--motherboard 100 and the input/output (I/O) devices 200. Motherboard 100 preferably includes subsystems such as central processing unit (CPU) 102, random access memory (RAM) 104, input/output (I/O) controller 108, and read-only memory (ROM) 106, also known as firmware, which are interconnected by bus 110.);
bundle the technical process data to determine a risk exposure (¶0060 Moreover, computer system 10 may be implemented as a hand held and/or portable system for assisting a property loss engineer in collecting information, analyzing risk of loss, and objectively assigning a numerical ratings or scores while conducting an extensive walk through of a property.);
receive a continuous feed of updates of the technical process data from one or more sensors that monitor the technical operation (¶0111 Next, business continuity 524 preferably has two criteria 530, illustrated as utilities 574 and business continuity plan 576. Referring now to FIG. 18, there is illustrated an exemplary utilities 574 risk of loss assessment process 1800, % redundancy and business interruption (BI) exposure scores 1802, and table 1804, utilized to assess the utilities required for operation of Area(N) of Property. More specifically, process 1800 preferably is utilized to define the steps in obtaining the critical utilities risk of loss rating. In step 1 of process 1800, utilities, such as electricity (power) gas, steam, gases like nitrogen, compressed air, water, and the like, which are located in Area(N) are listed in column 1 of table 1804);
dynamically evaluate and monitor the technical process data to maintain the technical process data on a regular basis through one or more communication channels, wherein the processing of the technical process data maintains a link between the risk exposure and the technical process data received from the one or more sensors that monitor the technical operation and update the technical process data in real-time (¶0112 Referring now to FIG. 18, there is illustrated an exemplary utilities 574 risk of loss assessment process 1800, % redundancy and business interruption (BI) exposure scores 1802, and table 1804, utilized to assess the utilities required for operation of Area(N) of Property. More specifically, process 1800 preferably is utilized to define the steps in obtaining the critical utilities risk of loss rating. In step 1 of process 1800, utilities, such as electricity (power) gas, steam, gases like nitrogen, compressed air, water, and the like, which are located in Area(N) are listed in column 1 of table 1804. Next, in step 2 of process 1800, the listed utilities are identified as either critical or non-critical to maintaining operations in Area(N). Next, in step 3 of process 1800, % redundancy 1808 of each critical utility in Area(N) is determined under evaluation in step 350 of process 300. Next, in step 4 of process 1800, % BI exposure 1806 of each critical utility in Area(N) is determined under evaluation in step 350 of process 300. ¶0057 Main storage device 202 preferably is connected to CPU 102 through a main storage controller (represented as 108) connected to bus 110. Network adapter 210 allows the computer system to send and receive data through communication devices. One example of a communications device is a modem including both cable and digital subscriber line (DSL). Other examples include a transceiver, a set-top box, a communication card, a satellite dish, an antenna, or any other network adapter capable of transmitting and receiving data over a communications link that is either a wired, optical, or wireless data pathway.); and
update a continuity plan corresponding to the risk exposure,wherein the processor is further configured to validate transactions based on the technical process data updated in real time to facilitate the update of the continuity plan and to reflect the impact of changes to the continuity of the multiple technical operations (¶0050 FIG. 19 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a risk of loss process and matrix for business continuity plan according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention. ¶0114 Referring now to FIG. 19, there is illustrated an exemplary business continuity plan 558 risk of loss assessment process 1900, comprising Area(N) matrix for operating capacity 1902, production bottlenecks 1904, interdependencies of raw materials 1906, interdependencies of products 1908, equipment availability 1910, upstream dependency 1912, downstream dependency 1914, raw materials 1916, finished goods stock 1918, building replacement time 1920 and the like, utilized to assess the business continuity required for operation of Area(N) of Property. More specifically, process 1900 preferably is utilized to determine the total business continuity plan score 1922…Beginning with operating capacity 1902 of process 1900, for example, if Area(N) is determined to be operating at 10% of maximum operating capacity, the operating capacity Area(N) score is a 9 based on operating capacity 1902 matrix).
Although not explicitly taught by Swahn, Schmeling teaches in the analogous art of blockchain enabled packaging:
bundle the technical process data to determine a risk exposure (¶0135 This leads to block-chain packaging for ammunition, refills, spares, etc., that can be re-issued or transferred by tender and acceptance between soldiers using private keys, through units using combo private and public keys, and so on. The inventory issue could be alleviated in units by transferring assigned items on a block chain rather than paper inventory. Could reduce losses. Could be used for custom packaging for cash that's distributed in theater, and reduce the loss of cash, because it was bundled with serials, packaged in track able packages, and so on. ¶0178 These combined capabilities—automated, sensor-based feedback loops and human-powered intervention with network incentives—can be combined to allow contractual allocations of risk, such as insurance or similar financial mechanisms. These verifiable data sources can allow for the application of financial tools and methodologies that can help insure, finance, or otherwise support production efforts, while also allowing for automated enforcement of contract terms.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the blockchain enabled packaging of Schmeling with the system for system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property of Swahn for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Swahn ¶0009 teaches that there is a recognizable need for a system and method for numerical risk loss assessment;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Swahn Abstract teaches a system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property, and Schmeling Abstract teaches an distributed ledger or blockchain may be used to record transactions, execute smart contracts, and perform other operations to increase transparency and integrity of supply chain; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Swahn at least the above cited paragraphs, and Schmeling at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the blockchain enabled packaging of Schmeling with the system for system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property of Swahn. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Swahn teaches:
Claim 2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the continuity plan provides an interface that allows other operational units to send a message to that continuity plan and get back a response that provides the continuity based on the technical process data updated in real time (¶0065 Referring now to FIG. 3, there is illustrated a preferred process 300 for identifying, evaluating and calculating the overall risk of loss rating for a Property. Process 300 may be implemented by computer system 10 or other similar hardware, software, device, computer, computer system, equipment, component, application, code, storage medium or propagated signal. Preferred process 300 starts with step 310, wherein process 300 preferably queries a property loss engineer or other evaluator (Evaluator) to start a risk of loss assessment of an identified Property. Such risk of loss assessment is preferably performed when an Evaluator conducts an extensive walk-through and performs a review of the property identifying potential risks, code violations, suggested safety procedures and systems and the like. However, it is contemplated herein that an assessment of an identified Property may alternatively be performed remotely by analyzing a multi-media presentation of such identified Property, such as a pre-recorded audio/video walk-through of the Property, or while viewing a real-time recording of a walk-through of such Property. Next, in step 320, process 300 preferably queries for the selection of an Area, such as Area1 of one or more Areas(N) identified in process 200.).
Swahn teaches:
Claim 3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate an underwriting contract or cover of insurance to transfer the risk exposure (¶0098 Referring now to FIG. 12C, there is illustrated an exemplary fire protection 544 risk of loss assessment matrix 1208, utilized to assess local fire department capabilities serving Area(N) of Property. More specifically, matrix 1208 preferably is utilized to assess the local fire department capabilities based on the departments Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating, which can be determined by phoning the local fire department. Based on the local fire departments ISO rating, the fire protection 544 risk of loss rating can be obtained utilizing matrix 1208. Moreover, the fire protection 544 risk of loss rating is adjusted based on internal fire protection services and training utilizing matrix 1210. ).
Although not explicitly taught by Swahn, Schmeling teaches in the analogous art of blockchain enabled packaging:
Claim 4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to bundle the technical process data through one or more instruments or financial derivatives for primary or secondary trading of a traded risk (¶0181 The ability to verify authenticity through this methodology can also be very useful for collectible or luxury goods that are being sold on a secondary market. In one example, a luxury watch maker can embed data on the packaging, the watch, or both that would allow a secondary purchaser to verify not only the authenticity of the watch, but also that the seller is the rightful owner, that the seller is an authorized dealer (e.g., not “grey market”, that is legal but not within the system of authorized dealers on which a purchaser may rely for return, replacement, warranty, or even repair at their own expense)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the blockchain enabled packaging of Schmeling with the system for system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property of Swahn for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Swahn ¶0009 teaches that there is a recognizable need for a system and method for numerical risk loss assessment;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Swahn Abstract teaches a system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property, and Schmeling Abstract teaches an distributed ledger or blockchain may be used to record transactions, execute smart contracts, and perform other operations to increase transparency and integrity of supply chain; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Swahn at least the above cited paragraphs, and Schmeling at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the blockchain enabled packaging of Schmeling with the system for system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property of Swahn. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Swahn teaches:
Claim 5. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine an aggregate value of the multiple technical operations based on the technical process data (¶0063 Next, in step 220 of process 200, Area1 is evaluated to determine whether or not Area1 comprises 80% or more of the total insured value (TIV) of the Property. If the area(s) of Area(N) do not comprise at least 80% of the TIV, process 200 proceeds to step 230, wherein an additional area (Area2), defined in step 210, is added to Area1. Next, process 200, returns to step 220, wherein Area1 and Area2 are evaluated to determine whether or not their combined areas comprise 80% or more of the total insured value (TIV) of the Property. Steps 210-230 continue to add area(s) to the previously identified area(s) until the combination of area(s) comprises 80% or more of the TIV for the Property. Upon determining that the selected area(s) comprises 80% or more of the TIV for the Property in step 220, process 200 proceeds to step 240.).
Swahn teaches:
Claim 6. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the technical process data relates to a business continuity analysis or a business impact analysis (¶0080 Referring now to FIG. 5, there is illustrated a computer screen showing an exemplary risk of loss assessment summary 500, wherein Areas(N) of process 300 of Property are set forth as Area 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, and 508, shown as headers for columns D-K in FIG. 5. Category (X) of process 300 is set forth as categories in column A in FIG. 5, and has categories of recommendations 512 in row 3, construction 514 in row 6, occupancy 516 in row 9, protection 518 in row 12, exposure 520 in row 16, management program 522 in row 19, and business continuity 524 in row 30 in FIG. 5.).
Swahn teaches:
Claim 7. The computer system of claim 1, wherein validating the technical process data comprises validating the technical process data against ISO 22317 (¶0098 Referring now to FIG. 12C, there is illustrated an exemplary fire protection 544 risk of loss assessment matrix 1208, utilized to assess local fire department capabilities serving Area(N) of Property. More specifically, matrix 1208 preferably is utilized to assess the local fire department capabilities based on the departments Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating, which can be determined by phoning the local fire department. Based on the local fire departments ISO rating, the fire protection 544 risk of loss rating can be obtained utilizing matrix 1208. Moreover, the fire protection 544 risk of loss rating is adjusted based on internal fire protection services and training utilizing matrix 1210. More specifically, matrix 1208 preferably is utilized to assess the type of internal fire brigade capabilities, staffing and training of Area(N) based on assessment definitions matrix 1210. Based on the internal fire brigades fire protection 544, risk of loss adjustment can be obtained utilizing matrix 1210. The risk of loss adjustment is added to risk of loss rating obtained using matrix 1208.).
Swahn teaches:
Claim 8. The computer system of claim 1, wherein validating the technical process data comprises validating the technical process data against ISO/TS 22317 of 2015 or later and/or IS022318 of 2015 or later (¶0098 Referring now to FIG. 12C, there is illustrated an exemplary fire protection 544 risk of loss assessment matrix 1208, utilized to assess local fire department capabilities serving Area(N) of Property. More specifically, matrix 1208 preferably is utilized to assess the local fire department capabilities based on the departments Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating, which can be determined by phoning the local fire department. Based on the local fire departments ISO rating, the fire protection 544 risk of loss rating can be obtained utilizing matrix 1208. Moreover, the fire protection 544 risk of loss rating is adjusted based on internal fire protection services and training utilizing matrix 1210. More specifically, matrix 1208 preferably is utilized to assess the type of internal fire brigade capabilities, staffing and training of Area(N) based on assessment definitions matrix 1210. Based on the internal fire brigades fire protection 544, risk of loss adjustment can be obtained utilizing matrix 1210. The risk of loss adjustment is added to risk of loss rating obtained using matrix 1208.).
Although not explicitly taught by Swahn, Schmeling teaches in the analogous art of blockchain enabled packaging:
Claim 9. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the computer system is a bidding server (¶0043 Platform (software marketplace/broker): The platform facilitates payment, quality feedback on outputs, “matching” of parties (including reverse bidding or other pricing methodologies), hosting design files (and storing, sharing, reusing, etc. such files), quality assurance on individual printer outputs (e.g., print a job based on a particular file each month/quarter/year/etc. and send to some aspect of the platform for quality assurance review), picking the nearest capable printer to minimize shipping distance and cost, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the blockchain enabled packaging of Schmeling with the system for system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property of Swahn for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Swahn ¶0009 teaches that there is a recognizable need for a system and method for numerical risk loss assessment;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Swahn Abstract teaches a system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property, and Schmeling Abstract teaches an distributed ledger or blockchain may be used to record transactions, execute smart contracts, and perform other operations to increase transparency and integrity of supply chain; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Swahn at least the above cited paragraphs, and Schmeling at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the blockchain enabled packaging of Schmeling with the system for system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property of Swahn. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Although not explicitly taught by Swahn, Schmeling teaches in the analogous art of blockchain enabled packaging:
Claim 10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to operate a Blockchain, to facilitate distributed communication to multiple bidding client computer systems (¶0051 As discussed above, any or all transactions performed via or in relation to a distributed manufacturing platform, such as described herein, may be recorded to a ledger or blockchain, which may be distributed and stored on multiple computers (e.g., computers of members or users of the platform, computers of the platform itself, etc.). These transactions include, but are not limited to, transactions between parties (e.g., purchase transactions, payment transactions, etc.).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the blockchain enabled packaging of Schmeling with the system for system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property of Swahn for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Swahn ¶0009 teaches that there is a recognizable need for a system and method for numerical risk loss assessment;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Swahn Abstract teaches a system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property, and Schmeling Abstract teaches an distributed ledger or blockchain may be used to record transactions, execute smart contracts, and perform other operations to increase transparency and integrity of supply chain; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Swahn at least the above cited paragraphs, and Schmeling at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the blockchain enabled packaging of Schmeling with the system for system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment of an insured property of Swahn. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Swahn teaches:
Claim 11. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to verify the technical process experts (¶0108 FIGS. 17A-17O represent an exemplary embodiment of the matrix for Criteria(Y), setting forth the Objective Factors required to objectively assess the risk of loss of management programs 522. It is contemplated herein that other representative matrix may be developed setting forth the Objective Criteria for assessing Criteria(Y) for housekeeping 554, impairment procedures 556, smoking regulations 558, maintenance 560, employee training 562, pre-emergency plan 564, hot work 566, contractors 568, management of change 570, and self inspection 572.).
Swahn teaches:
Claim 12. A computer implemented method for processing and distributing technical process data, the method comprising:
receiving the technical process data from multiple technical process experts on a dynamic basis, wherein the technical process data relates to a technical impact of one or more physical events on a continuity of multiple technical operations (¶0022 Yet another feature of the system and method for numerical risk of loss assessment is its ability to enable a property loss engineer to input numerical property loss ratings for each subsystem or sub-area and have such information stored and available to other users on a remotely accessible server or system or via the Internet);
storing the technical process data on a database;validating the technical process data against a business impact analysis standard (¶0056 Computer programming for implementing the present invention may be written in various programming languages, such as conventional C calling, database languages such as Oracle or .NET. However, it is understood that other source or object oriented programming languages, and other conventional programming language may be utilized without departing from the spirit and intent of the present invention. ¶0057 Referring now to FIG. 1, there is illustrated a block diagram of a computer system 10 that provides a suitable environment for implementing embodiments of the present invention. The computer architecture shown in FIG. 1 is divided into two parts--motherboard 100 and the input/output (I/O) devices 200. Motherboard 100 preferably includes subsystems such as central processing unit (CPU) 102, random access memory (RAM) 104, input/output (I/O) controller 108, and read-only memory (ROM) 106, also known as firmware, which are interconnected by bus 110);
consolidating the technical process data into the database;determining an aggregate value of the multiple technical operations based on the technical process data;calculating an insurance premium based on the technical process data; bundling the technical process data through one or more instruments or financial derivatives for primary or secondary trading of a traded risk (¶0060 Moreover, computer system 10 may be implemented as a hand held and/or portable system for assisting a property loss engineer in collecting information, analyzing risk of loss, and objectively assigning a numerical ratings or scores while conducting an extensive walk through of a property ¶0121 Now, when process 200 and 300 is implemented by the different insurers participating in a multi-insurer property loss insurance policy or the insured party is requesting the utilization of such a process, the resulting insurance policy submitted using process 200 and 300 is based on Objective Factors and the insured party reviewing each quote for coverage submitted by each insurer of the multi-insurer policy may directly compare and/or evaluate the assumptions and underlying premises that went into the risk of loss analysis, compare and/or evaluate the individual Area(N) ratings and scores for Category(X) and Criteria(Y), review the Category(X) and Criteria(Y) selected for assessment and evaluation, review the Areas(N) evaluated and any other differentiating data (Assessment Data) utilized in preparation and formation of each risk of loss quote. Ultimately, the insured party may utilize the Assessment Data to challenge individual quotes, to compare quotes, to make a direct comparison between insurance coverage providers, and to standardize the risk of loss assessment and analysis utilized by each insurer of the multi-insurer policy providing risk of loss coverage.);
receiving a continuous feed of updates of the technical process data from one or more sensors that monitor the technical operation (¶0111 Next, business continuity 524 preferably has two criteria 530, illustrated as utilities 574 and business continuity plan 576. Referring now to FIG. 18, there is illustrated an exemplary utilities 574 risk of loss assessment process 1800, % redundancy and business interruption (BI) exposure scores 1802, and table 1804, utilized to assess the utilities required for operation of Area(N) of Property. More specifically, process 1800 preferably is utilized to define the steps in obtaining the critical utilities risk of loss rating. In step 1 of process 1800, utilities, such as electricity (power) gas, steam, gases like nitrogen, compressed air, water, and the like, which are located in Area(N) are listed in column 1 of table 1804);
dynamically evaluating and monitoring the technical process data to maintain the technical process data on a regular basis through one or more communication channels, wherein the processing of the technical process data maintains a link between the traded risk and the technical process data received from monitoring devices that monitor the technical operation and update the technical process data in real-time (¶0112 Referring now to FIG. 18, there is illustrated an exemplary utilities 574 risk of loss assessment process 1800, % redundancy and business interruption (BI) exposure scores 1802, and table 1804, utilized to assess the utilities required for operation of Area(N) of Property. More specifically, process 1800 preferably is utilized to define the steps in obtaining the critical utilities risk of loss rating. In step 1 of process 1800, utilities, such as electricity (power) gas, steam, gases like nitrogen, compressed air, water, and the like, which are located in Area(N) are listed in column 1 of table 1804. Next, in step 2