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 . Claims 1-2 and 4-8 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant amended claims, cancelled claim 2, and previously cancelled claim 3. Claims 1 and 4-8 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The 102/103 Rejections were overcome and withdrawn in the Final Office action dated 01/08/2026.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the setting of coefficients is not a generic mathematical operation and as such the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of machine learning (recited at a high level of generality; i.e. ML) to set a calculation formula to find coefficients is an additional element which is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to both mental processes and further certain methods of organizing human activity as described below in the full 101 Rejection.
Applicant contends at Step 2A-P2 that the claims recite complex infrastructure and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are each separated (bolded) below and amount to performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that the machine learning executes simulations which include a plurality of data points and constitutes a technical solution to a specific problem. Applicant further points to the Specification in at least [05, 52, 64] in which the ML model has a concrete technical constraint.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ML is recited at a high level of generality. The mere use of parameters/constraints does not demonstrate an improvement to the technology(i.e. technological functioning of the model) or technological field nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant contends the optimized parameters incorporated into contract information and then transmit to a fund provider. Applicant further asserts the combination of elements is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The determination of coefficients via simulations is recited at a high level of generality. Further the transmission of data is addressed as “apply it” described above. Examiner further notes the only element addressed as WURC is the transmission step which further points to the MPEP to provide evidence of the analysis.
Applicant contends that the enablement of an information processing apparatus to reliably and transparently automate the management of a multi-layered financial model with interdependent payment streams to provide results that human beings cannot. Applicant further points to Enfish… and McRo…
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is identified below as well as the additional elements. The claims are directed to both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, while the additional elements are addressed in Steps 2A-P2 and 2B. Further the Examiner notes that the present claims do not match the fact patterns of the cited cases as the present claims are directed towards acquiring contract information, acquiring probability data, transmitting to a fund provider…. , the use of machine learning (at a high level of generality)… specifying an executor, etc. while McRo is directed towards automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology and not directed to an abstract idea and Enfish is directed towards a self-referential table for a computer database is directed to an improvement in computer capabilities.
Applicant contends at Step 2B that the provide a technical solution which greatly eases the difficulty of getting a project funded.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are analyzed both individually as well as in combination and determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
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 4-8 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.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding Claim(s) 1 and 8, (additional elements bolded)
An information processing method executed by an information processing apparatus, the method comprising the steps of/ An information processing apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory, the non-transitory memory storing a program containing instructions which, when the processor executes the instructions, cause the processor to execute a method comprising:
acquiring first contract information and insurance contract information on a contract relating to an infrastructure development project for development of infrastructure including existing buildings of logistics facilities, factories, and offices, the first contract information being related to a first performance-linked contract for business continuity planning (BCP) for companies and organizations, in which a payment is made based on disaster mitigation performance accomplished through the infrastructure and the insurance contract information being related to a disaster insurance contract for the infrastructure,
acquiring probability data, indicating the probability of occurrence of a disaster announced by organizations that study the occurrence of disasters, from a plurality of cases;
transmitting, to a fund provider including investors, second contract information on a second performance- linked contract relating to the infrastructure development project, in which a payment is made based on the disaster mitigation performance of the first performance-linked contract;
receiving, from the fund provider, condition information containing a payment condition regarding the payment determined based on the second contract information;
receiving first to third coefficients from a machine learning system, trained on learning data including the probability data from a plurality of cases, a contract period, an amount of money corresponding to the disaster mitigation performance, and development costs from a plurality of cases, and the first to third coefficients, the machine learning system (recited at a high level of generality) being configured to set a calculation formula using the first to third coefficients as parameters and to find the first to third coefficients by performing simulations based on past cases;
applying the set first coefficient in the insurance contract information to obtain an insurance fee for remuneration paid to the fund provider;
applying the set second coefficient in the first contract information to obtain performance remuneration for disaster mitigation paid to the fund provider based on the second contract information,
applying the set third coefficient to the second contract information to obtain an amount of money corresponding to the disaster mitigation performance responsive to the infrastructure being damaged during the contract period, at least based on the contract period and the amount of money corresponding to the disaster mitigation performance, wherein the larger the amount of money corresponding to the disaster mitigation performance or the longer the contract period is, the lower the third coefficient may be;
acquiring, from the fund provider, funding data regarding funds to applying the set second coefficient in the first contract information;
the applying of the set first to third coefficients in the calculation formula being such that a payment calculated from the set first to third coefficients is greater than or equal to funds raised for the infrastructure development project;
responsive to acquiring the funding data, specifying an executor of the infrastructure development project upon acquiring the funding data; and
responsive to acquiring the funding data, specifying an executor of the infrastructure development project using identifying information of an infrastructure development business stored in a memory of the information processing apparatus, wherein the executor includes a construction company or design company executing the infrastructure development business; and
responsive to acquiring the funding data and specifying the executor, transmitting, to the executor, order information on the infrastructure development project, the order information including construction method, delivery date, and cost so that the executor can execute the infrastructure development project.
Further regarding Claim 7, A non-transitory recording medium storing a program for causing an information apparatus to perform the method of claim 1.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards at least acquiring contract and insurance information, acquiring probability and funding data, receiving condition information, applying coefficients, and specifying an executor all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards disaster mitigation for organizations and performance-linked contracts. (See Specification, [05]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least the additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Examiner further notes that the transmitting steps are an activity that has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362)
Regarding Claim(s) 4, 5, and 6 the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or 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.
Conclusion
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 JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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 on (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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
