1110PE2ffefwefewf
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. In response to Examiner’s Non- Final Rejection Applicant amended claims and cancelled claim 3. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The amended claims overcome the currently known prior art and as such overcome the 102/103 Rejections. The 103 Rejections are therefore withdrawn.
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 claims were amended to include aspects regarding training and retraining of the machine learning model. Applicant further points to the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not teach any training or retraining of the machine learning model. The cited paragraphs merely discuss acquisition and setting units which perform functions such as setting coefficients but it is unclear what actions the machine learning is taking to perform the functions and how the machine learning model is trained/retrained to calculate the coefficients.
Applicant further contends the cited limitations improve the technology and further points to paragraph 65 of the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited improvement of improving the appropriateness for setting payments merely improves upon the abstract idea itself and does not constitute an improvement to the technology or the technological field as a whole.
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, the first contract information being related to a first performance-linked contract 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, second contract information on a second performance- linked contract 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;
using a machine learning system, trained on the probability data indicating the probability of occurrence of a disaster announced by organizations that study the occurrence of disasters, a contract period, an amount of money corresponding to the disaster mitigation performance, and development costs from a plurality of cases, setting first to third coefficients, wherein:
the first coefficient is a coefficient applied to an insurance fee responsive to part of the insurance fee, received through disaster insurance for the infrastructure, being paid to the fund provider;
the second coefficient is a coefficient applied to performance remuneration responsive to part of the performance remuneration being taken as the performance remuneration paid to the fund provider based on the second contract information:
the third coefficient is a coefficient responsive to the first contract information on the first performance-linked contract containing a contract period and an amount of money
corresponding to the disaster mitigation performance, the third coefficient being applied to the 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;
including the set first coefficient in the insurance contract information, the set second coefficient in the first contract information and the set third coefficient in the second contract information;
acquiring, from the fund provider, funding data regarding funds to be set based on the infrastructure development project first contract information;
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 and specifying the executor, transmitting, to the executor, order information on 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 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 information processing apparatus/ A non-transitory recording medium storing a program for causing an information apparatus to perform the method of claim 1/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; transmitting, to a fund provider; using a machine learning system (recited at a high level of generality); and transmitting, to the executor, 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) 2, 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.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 though directed to non-statutory subject matter, are deemed to define over the currently known prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103. Examiner interprets based upon the claim limitations that there is no currently known prior art that discloses the features relating to: “acquiring first contract information and insurance contract information on a contract relating to an infrastructure development project for development of infrastructure, the first contract information being related to a first performance-linked contract in which a payment is made based on disaster mitigation performance accomplished through the infrastructure [[or]] 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, second contract information on a second performance- linked contract 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; using a machine learning system, trained on the probability data indicating the probability of occurrence of a disaster announced by organizations that study the occurrence of disasters, a contract period, an amount of money corresponding to the disaster mitigation performance, and development costs from a plurality of cases, setting first to third coefficients, wherein: the first coefficient is a coefficient applied to an insurance fee responsive to part of the insurance fee, received through disaster insurance for the infrastructure, being paid to the fund provider; the second coefficient is a coefficient applied to performance remuneration responsive to part of the performance remuneration being taken as the performance remuneration paid to the fund provider based on the second contract information: the third coefficient is a coefficient responsive to the first contract information on the first performance-linked contract containing a contract period and an amount of money corresponding to the disaster mitigation performance, the third coefficient being applied to the 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; including the set first coefficient in the insurance contract information, the set second coefficient in the first contract information and the set third coefficient in the second contract information;”
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Known Prior Art (patent)
Regmi et al.
US 20200410590 A1
Kremen et al.
US 20080091589 A1
Vigano et al.
US 20170011318 A1
Garber et al.
US 20200210965 A1
Miyamoto et al.
US 20030110121 A1
Strenstrud et al.
US 20220398664 A1
Gross et al.
US 20070226072 A1
Nakai et al.
US 20040267577 A1
Crabtree et al.
US 20200004904 A1
Eder at al.
US 7873567 B2
Known Prior Art (NPL)
D. Yao and W. Zhan, "Analysis on Risk Features of International Engineering Projects Based on SVM Method," 2020 6th International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR), Singapore, 2020, pp. 496-504, doi: 10.1109/ICCAR49639.2020.9108008.
Known Prior Art (foreign)
Kinter et al.
WO2020023809A1
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/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights