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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final rejection is in reply to the application filed 8/6/2025.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/6/2025 and 2/19/2026 have been considered by the Examiner; an initialed copy is contained within.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claims in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-11 include one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit configured to”, “a rental fee acquisition unit configured to”, “a depreciation calculation unit configured to”, “a management cost acquisition unit configured to”, “a profit/loss calculation unit configured to”, “a productization unit configured to” [claim 1]; “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” [claims 10 and 11]. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit configured to”, “a rental fee acquisition unit configured to”, “a depreciation calculation unit configured to”, “a management cost acquisition unit configured to”, “a profit/loss calculation unit configured to”, “a productization unit configured to” and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor-see applicant’s disclosure, ¶6: “purchase/sale cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a purchase cost of the t mobile bodies and a sale price of the t mobile bodies after the predetermined period; a rental fee acquisition unit configured to acquire a rental fee in a case where each of the t mobile bodies is leased to the renter; a depreciation calculation unit configured to calculate a depreciation cost for each of the t mobile bodies; a management cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a management cost including repair and maintenance costs associated with repair and maintenance of each of the t mobile bodies during the predetermined period; a profit/loss calculation unit configured to calculate a profit/loss amount of the fund and a profit/loss amount of the investor, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the depreciation cost, and the management cost; and a productization unit configured to set the fund product, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the management cost, the profit/loss of the fund, and the profit/loss of the investor”; ¶45: “The purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301 calculates the purchase cost and the sale price (trade-in value) after a predetermined period for each of the t reusable rockets RC”; ¶46: “depreciation calculation unit 302 calculates depreciation costs for each of the t reusable rockets RC, based on the purchase cost and other calculation results obtained by the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301”; ¶47: “the rental fee acquisition unit 303 acquires rental fees for each of the t reusable rockets RC, in cases where the service provider M, acting as the lessor having leased the t reusable rockets RC from the rocket fund F, leases the t reusable rockets RC to the renter R under a lease agreement’; ¶48: “The management cost acquisition unit 304 acquires the management cost required for the t reusable rockets RC during the period up to the time of sale after a predetermined period. Since the management cost includes launching costs for launching the t reusable rockets RC and repair and maintenance costs for maintaining and repairing the t reusable rockets RC, which are performed by the service provider M, a predicted amount is calculated based on the assumptions regarding the number of launches and the number of maintenance and repair operations, and is acquired as the management cost”; ¶49: “The profit/loss calculation unit 305 calculates at least the profit/loss amount of the rocket fund F and the profit/loss amount of the investor I, based on the acquisition results obtained by the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301, the calculation results obtained by the depreciation calculation unit 302, the acquisition results obtained by the rental fee acquisition unit 303, and the acquisition results obtained by the management cost acquisition unit 304. If necessary, the profit/loss calculation unit 305 also calculates the profit/loss amounts of the service provider M and the renter R”; ¶53: “The productization unit 202 repeatedly executes each processing of the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301, the depreciation calculation unit 302, the rental fee acquisition unit 303, the management cost acquisition unit 304, and the profit/loss calculation unit 305, while performing simulations by varying combinations of the purchase cost, sale price, depreciation cost, rental fee, management cost, profit/loss of the rocket fund F, and profit/loss of the investor I for each of the t reusable rockets RC (and, as necessary, also including parameters associated with each of the t reusable rockets RC and the profit/loss of the renter R). Based on the execution results of the processing, the productization unit 202 determines the content of the product of the rocket fund F such that the profit/loss amount of the rocket fund F matches the desired amount of the investor I”). Applicant’s disclosure merely provides functional language for achieving a desired outcome and does not provide the requisite hardware or software components to perform the claimed limitations. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 recite, “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. The respective steps are not recited in applicant’s disclosure, however in an effort to further prosecution, Examiner interprets the limitations of independent claims 10 and 11 as being substantially similar to independent claim 1. Moreover, the disclosure merely provides functional language for achieving a desired outcome and does not provide the requisite hardware or software components to perform the claimed limitations of independent claim 10 and independent claim 11. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 recite, “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of”. Examiner was unable to find support in the disclosure for the respective limitations, nor does the specification demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function since the invention is not described in sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example, the specification as filed does not adequately describe or support “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” as recited in the limitation(s), nor doe sit allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the applicant has invented what is claimed. Applicant is requested to identify where exactly the limitations are supported in applicant’s disclosure.
Claim 11 recites, “A non-transitory computer readable medium”, however Examiner was unable to find support in the disclosure for a non-transitory computer readable medium, nor does the specification demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function since the invention is not described in sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example, the specification as filed does not adequately describe or support “a non-transitory computer readable medium” as recited in the limitation(s), that performs the steps in the claimed limitations, nor does it allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the applicant has invented what is claimed. Applicant is requested to identify where exactly the limitations are supported in applicant’s disclosure.
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 1-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification is vague and discloses no corresponding hardware and/or algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38, 86 USPQ2d at 1242. The terms “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit configured to”, “a rental fee acquisition unit configured to”, “a depreciation calculation unit configured to”, “a management cost acquisition unit configured to”, “a profit/loss calculation unit configured to”, “a productization unit configured to” [claim 1]; “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” [claims 10 and 11] is/are a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation(s), and the specification does not disclose the requisite structure nor an operative algorithm for the claim elements. While the specification describes in general terms at ¶6: “purchase/sale cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a purchase cost of the t mobile bodies and a sale price of the t mobile bodies after the predetermined period; a rental fee acquisition unit configured to acquire a rental fee in a case where each of the t mobile bodies is leased to the renter; a depreciation calculation unit configured to calculate a depreciation cost for each of the t mobile bodies; a management cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a management cost including repair and maintenance costs associated with repair and maintenance of each of the t mobile bodies during the predetermined period; a profit/loss calculation unit configured to calculate a profit/loss amount of the fund and a profit/loss amount of the investor, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the depreciation cost, and the management cost; and a productization unit configured to set the fund product, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the management cost, the profit/loss of the fund, and the profit/loss of the investor”; ¶45: “The purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301 calculates the purchase cost and the sale price (trade-in value) after a predetermined period for each of the t reusable rockets RC”; ¶46: “depreciation calculation unit 302 calculates depreciation costs for each of the t reusable rockets RC, based on the purchase cost and other calculation results obtained by the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301”; ¶47: “the rental fee acquisition unit 303 acquires rental fees for each of the t reusable rockets RC, in cases where the service provider M, acting as the lessor having leased the t reusable rockets RC from the rocket fund F, leases the t reusable rockets RC to the renter R under a lease agreement’; ¶48: “The management cost acquisition unit 304 acquires the management cost required for the t reusable rockets RC during the period up to the time of sale after a predetermined period. Since the management cost includes launching costs for launching the t reusable rockets RC and repair and maintenance costs for maintaining and repairing the t reusable rockets RC, which are performed by the service provider M, a predicted amount is calculated based on the assumptions regarding the number of launches and the number of maintenance and repair operations, and is acquired as the management cost”; ¶49: “The profit/loss calculation unit 305 calculates at least the profit/loss amount of the rocket fund F and the profit/loss amount of the investor I, based on the acquisition results obtained by the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301, the calculation results obtained by the depreciation calculation unit 302, the acquisition results obtained by the rental fee acquisition unit 303, and the acquisition results obtained by the management cost acquisition unit 304. If necessary, the profit/loss calculation unit 305 also calculates the profit/loss amounts of the service provider M and the renter R”; ¶53: “The productization unit 202 repeatedly executes each processing of the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301, the depreciation calculation unit 302, the rental fee acquisition unit 303, the management cost acquisition unit 304, and the profit/loss calculation unit 305, while performing simulations by varying combinations of the purchase cost, sale price, depreciation cost, rental fee, management cost, profit/loss of the rocket fund F, and profit/loss of the investor I for each of the t reusable rockets RC (and, as necessary, also including parameters associated with each of the t reusable rockets RC and the profit/loss of the renter R). Based on the execution results of the processing, the productization unit 202 determines the content of the product of the rocket fund F such that the profit/loss amount of the rocket fund F matches the desired amount of the investor I”, it is simply a description of the outcome (function) of the claimed elements, not a description of the structure. Hence, the specification fails to disclose any structure, algorithm or description as to how the respective information is actually acquired, calculated and established. Further, mere reference to a general-purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" (algorithm) without providing details about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41, 86 USPQ2d at 1623. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system “program”, "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383-85, 91 USPQ2d 1481, 1491-93 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366-67, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395, 1405-06 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2009).
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw and are therefore also rejected.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-9 are directed to a system (machine, “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices”), claim 10 is directed to a process (method), claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Claim 1 recites in part, “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a purchase cost of the t mobile bodies and a sale price of the t mobile bodies after the predetermined period; a rental fee acquisition unit configured to acquire a rental fee in a case where each of the t mobile bodies is leased to the renter; a depreciation calculation unit configured to calculate a depreciation cost for each of the t mobile bodies; a management cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a management cost including repair and maintenance costs associated with repair and maintenance of each of the t mobile bodies during the predetermined period; a profit/loss calculation unit configured to calculate a profit/loss amount of the fund and a profit/loss amount of the investor, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the depreciation cost, and the management cost; and a productization unit configured to set the fund product, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the management cost, the profit/loss of the fund, and the profit/loss of the investor.”
The underlined limitations above demonstrate independent claim 1 is directed toward the abstract idea for acquiring a purchase cost, sale price and rental fee of t mobile bodies; calculating a depreciation cost, management cost including repair and maintenance cost during a predetermined time period; calculating a profit/loss amount of a fund and an investor and setting the fund product based on the rental fee, purchase cost, sale price, management cost, and the profit/loss of the fund and the investor in a computing environment.
Applicant’s specification emphasizes that the object of the invention is to provide investors with fund products which have superior investment yields, supply-demand balance, and trading market stability, and which are capable of achieving profits and losses desired by the investors (¶5). The specification generally discusses that the fund target is a reusable rocket RC among rockets. The reusable rocket RC refers to a rocket system that can be repeatedly used in practice, such as a reusable space transportation vehicle or a spaceplane. The reusable rocket RC is the investment target, asset management is performed by a service provider M, and the dividends (revenue) to investors I are funded by rental fees (so-called lease fees) for the reusable rocket RC. The fund F targeting such a reusable rocket RC is referred to as a "rocket fund F", and the parties involved in the rocket fund F include the service provider M, the investor I, the seller S, and the renter R. (¶10, ¶12, ¶14, ¶15)
Claim 1 is considered an abstract idea because the underlined limitations pertain to (i) concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); (ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). With the exception of “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit”, “a rental fee acquisition unit”, “a depreciation calculation unit”, “a management cost acquisition unit”, “a profit/loss calculation unit”, “a productization unit” [claim 1]; “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” [claims 10 and 11], a human being with a pen and paper can acquire a purchase cost, sale price and rental fee of t mobile bodies; calculate a depreciation cost, management cost including repair and maintenance cost during a predetermined time period; calculate a profit/loss amount of a fund and an investor, and set the fund product based on the rental fee, purchase cost, sale price, management cost, and the profit/loss of the fund and the investor, hence the claim limitations are directed to the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations are also directed to (ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) since the steps for acquiring a purchase cost, sale price and rental fee of t mobile bodies; calculating a depreciation cost, management cost including repair and maintenance cost during a predetermined time period; calculating a profit/loss amount of a fund and an investor and setting the fund product based on the rental fee, purchase cost, sale price, management cost, and the profit/loss of the fund and the investor are related to commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. Further; the claim limitations pertain to (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) whereby a purchase cost, sale price and rental fee of t mobile bodies are acquired; a depreciation cost, management cost including repair and maintenance cost during a predetermined time period is calculated (following rules or instructions); a profit/loss amount of a fund and an investor is calculated (interactions between people), and the fund product based on the rental fee, purchase cost, sale price, management cost, and the profit/loss of the fund and the investor is set managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) . Hence, the claim limitations are also directed to the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim limitations recite an abstract idea--see MPEP 2106.04(II). Independent claims 10 and 11 recite substantially similar limitations as independent claim 1, therefore they are also directed to the same abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit”, “a rental fee acquisition unit”, “a depreciation calculation unit”, “a management cost acquisition unit”, “a profit/loss calculation unit”, “a productization unit” [claim 1]; “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” [claims 10 and 11], merely provides an abstract-idea based solution using data gathering and analysis; and provide instructions for commercial interactions (business relations), organizing human interactions and implement the abstract idea recited above utilizing the “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit”, “a rental fee acquisition unit”, “a depreciation calculation unit”, “a management cost acquisition unit”, “a profit/loss calculation unit”, “a productization unit” [claim 1]; “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” [claims 10 and 11], as tools to perform the abstract idea, and generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05 (f-h). These elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea—see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Independent claim 1 fails to operate the recited “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit”, “a rental fee acquisition unit”, “a depreciation calculation unit”, “a management cost acquisition unit”, “a profit/loss calculation unit”, “a productization unit” [claim 1]; “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” [claims 10 and 11], (which are merely standard computer technology and hardware/software components)- see applicant’s disclosure, ¶6: “purchase/sale cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a purchase cost of the t mobile bodies and a sale price of the t mobile bodies after the predetermined period; a rental fee acquisition unit configured to acquire a rental fee in a case where each of the t mobile bodies is leased to the renter; a depreciation calculation unit configured to calculate a depreciation cost for each of the t mobile bodies; a management cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a management cost including repair and maintenance costs associated with repair and maintenance of each of the t mobile bodies during the predetermined period; a profit/loss calculation unit configured to calculate a profit/loss amount of the fund and a profit/loss amount of the investor, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the depreciation cost, and the management cost; and a productization unit configured to set the fund product, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the management cost, the profit/loss of the fund, and the profit/loss of the investor”; ¶45: “The purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301 calculates the purchase cost and the sale price (trade-in value) after a predetermined period for each of the t reusable rockets RC”; ¶46: “depreciation calculation unit 302 calculates depreciation costs for each of the t reusable rockets RC, based on the purchase cost and other calculation results obtained by the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301”; ¶47: “the rental fee acquisition unit 303 acquires rental fees for each of the t reusable rockets RC, in cases where the service provider M, acting as the lessor having leased the t reusable rockets RC from the rocket fund F, leases the t reusable rockets RC to the renter R under a lease agreement’; ¶48: “The management cost acquisition unit 304 acquires the management cost required for the t reusable rockets RC during the period up to the time of sale after a predetermined period. Since the management cost includes launching costs for launching the t reusable rockets RC and repair and maintenance costs for maintaining and repairing the t reusable rockets RC, which are performed by the service provider M, a predicted amount is calculated based on the assumptions regarding the number of launches and the number of maintenance and repair operations, and is acquired as the management cost”; ¶49: “The profit/loss calculation unit 305 calculates at least the profit/loss amount of the rocket fund F and the profit/loss amount of the investor I, based on the acquisition results obtained by the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301, the calculation results obtained by the depreciation calculation unit 302, the acquisition results obtained by the rental fee acquisition unit 303, and the acquisition results obtained by the management cost acquisition unit 304. If necessary, the profit/loss calculation unit 305 also calculates the profit/loss amounts of the service provider M and the renter R”; ¶53: “The productization unit 202 repeatedly executes each processing of the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit 301, the depreciation calculation unit 302, the rental fee acquisition unit 303, the management cost acquisition unit 304, and the profit/loss calculation unit 305, while performing simulations by varying combinations of the purchase cost, sale price, depreciation cost, rental fee, management cost, profit/loss of the rocket fund F, and profit/loss of the investor I for each of the t reusable rockets RC (and, as necessary, also including parameters associated with each of the t reusable rockets RC and the profit/loss of the renter R). Based on the execution results of the processing, the productization unit 202 determines the content of the product of the rocket fund F such that the profit/loss amount of the rocket fund F matches the desired amount of the investor I”) in any exceptional manner, and there is no evidence in the disclosure to suggest achieving an actual improvement in the computer functionality itself, or improvement in any specific computer technology other than utilizing ordinary computational tools to automate and perform the abstract idea for acquiring a purchase cost, sale price and rental fee of t mobile bodies; calculating a depreciation cost, management cost including repair and maintenance cost during a predetermined time period; calculating a profit/loss amount of a fund and an investor and setting the fund product based on the rental fee, purchase cost, sale price, management cost, and the profit/loss of the fund and the investor in a computing environment —see MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, applicant has not shown an improvement or practical application under the guidance of MPEP section 2106.04(d) or 2106.05(a). The description of these elements evidences that they are generic computing components used to perform generic functions. Hence, applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract using generic computer and networking components performing generic computer functions (acquiring, calculating, setting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component-see MPEP 2106.05(f) and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure the deficiencies of the above noted independent claim from which they depend and are therefore rejected under the same grounds. The dependent claims further recite the abstract idea without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-9, recite additional data gathering and processing steps; for example, dependent claim 2 recites in part, “wherein content of the fund product is”, claim 3 recites in part, “wherein the investment conditions include”, claim 4 recites in part, “wherein the cash flow includes”, claim 5 recites in part, “wherein the profit/loss statements include”, claim 6 recites in part, “wherein the productization unit executes”, claim 7 recites in part, “wherein the productization unit executes”, claim 8 recites in part, “wherein the mobile bodies are”, claim 9 recites in part, “wherein the depreciation calculation unit calculates”, which are still directed toward the abstract idea identified previously and are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Therefore, the abstract idea fails to integrate into any practical application. Thus, under Step 2A-Prong Two the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit”, “a rental fee acquisition unit”, “a depreciation calculation unit”, “a management cost acquisition unit”, “a profit/loss calculation unit”, “a productization unit” [claim 1]; “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” [claims 10 and 11], amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
Claims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer. Here the recited, “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit”, “a rental fee acquisition unit”, “a depreciation calculation unit”, “a management cost acquisition unit”, “a profit/loss calculation unit”, “a productization unit” [claim 1]; “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” [claims 10 and 11], are merely used to acquire/calculate received data based on rules logic to further process the received information to implement the abstract idea, and similarly provides a generic environment in which the claimed method is performed”). In re TLI Commc’ns LLPC Patent Litig., 823F.3d607,611 (Fed. Cir.2016)
Moreover, there is no improvement to the “a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit”, “a rental fee acquisition unit”, “a depreciation calculation unit”, “a management cost acquisition unit”, “a profit/loss calculation unit”, “a productization unit” [claim 1]; “a purchase/sale cost acquisition step of”, “a rental fee acquisition step of”, “a depreciation calculation step of”, “a management cost acquisition step of”, “a profit/loss calculation step of”, “a productization step of” [claims 10 and 11], which amount to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components, linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment. Hence, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even when considered as a whole, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea for acquiring a purchase cost, sale price and rental fee of t mobile bodies; calculating a depreciation cost, management cost including repair and maintenance cost during a predetermined time period; calculating a profit/loss amount of a fund and an investor and setting the fund product based on the rental fee, purchase cost, sale price, management cost, and the profit/loss of the fund and the investor in a computing environment. Hence, claims 1-11 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giroux et al., US Patent Application Publication No US2009/0187512 A1, in view of Yi et al., “Index allocation for a reusable LOX/CH4 rocket engine”, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2021), 34(2):432-440, herein referred to as “Yi”.
With respect to claims 1, 10 and 11,
Giroux discloses,
a purchase/sale cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a purchase cost of the t mobile bodies and a sale price of the t mobile bodies after the predetermined period (Abstract: “The transferred asset is leased from the investing entity for a predetermined period”; Fig 1, Fig 3, ¶2, ¶3, ¶8: “when an asset underlying the ABS is sold, for instance, at the end of a lease, the proceeds from the sale are invested in another like-kind asset pursuant to the provisions of IRS Code Sections 1031 and 1033 and the regulations thereto, known in the art”;¶21: “reference numeral 304 in FIG. 3 may represent one or more investors, an entity owned at least in part by one or more investors, or an entity having an ancestor owned at least in part by one or more investors. One or more of the investors 305 may be represented by a lessor financial advisor and/or arranger 308 ("lessor FAA"). The lessor FAA 308 may advise an investor 305, or any of its related entities, on the structure of the investment, the asset appraisal process, the negotiation of the offering memorandum, known in the art, discussions with accounting personnel, discussions with tax and/or legal counsel, the bidding process, and the closing of the transaction”; ¶22: “ the finance company 301 instructs its titling trust 302 to create two separate portfolios of assets referred to herein as a "sold portfolio" and a "collateral portfolio." The sold portfolio and the collateral portfolio may be SUBIs, however, the invention is not so limited. The sold portfolio constitutes the beneficial interest in a portfolio of leases, along with the cash flows and assets associated with the leases, that ultimately are to be sold to the SPE lessor 304. The collateral portfolio constitutes the beneficial interest in a portfolio of leases, along with the cash flows and assets associated with the leases, that ultimately are to be retained by the SPE lessee 303 and pledged to the SPE lessor 304 as security for SPE lessee 303's obligations under its lease with the SPE lessor 304”; ¶23: “the finance company 301 capitalizes, or funds, the SPE lessee 303 with the sold portfolio, the collateral portfolio, and a cash accumulation/reserve account ("CAA"), known in the art. At step S403, the SPE lessee 303 sells the sold portfolio to the SPE lessor 304, but retains ownership of the collateral portfolio and the CAA. The SPE lessor 304 accordingly pays the SPE lessee 303 the sales price of the sold portfolio. To fund the purchase of the sold portfolio, the investors 305 make a contribution in aggregate equal to 100% of the sale price of the sold portfolio to the SPE lessor 304”)
a rental fee acquisition unit configured to acquire a rental fee in a case where each of the t mobile bodies is leased to the renter (Abstract: “The transferred asset is leased from the investing entity for a predetermined period”; ¶3: “Cash flows received by the issuer 104 from the SUBI, i.e., lease payments from the underlying users and residual proceeds from the purchase or disposition of the underlying vehicles, are used to service the obligations of the issuer 104 under the notes”; ¶9: “The TRAC may specify that, at the end of the predetermined period, if an actual residual value realized from the sale or disposition of the transferred assets is less than an estimated residual value of the transferred assets at an inception of a lease, a payment (the "TRAC") is made to the investing entity 105 in an amount corresponding to the difference between the estimated residual value and the actual residual value”; ¶22: “The sold portfolio constitutes the beneficial interest in a portfolio of leases, along with the cash flows and assets associated with the leases, that ultimately are to be sold to the SPE lessor 304. The collateral portfolio constitutes the beneficial interest in a portfolio of leases, along with the cash flows and assets associated with the leases, that ultimately are to be retained by the SPE lessee 303 and pledged to the SPE lessor 304 as security for SPE lessee 303's obligations under its lease with the SPE lessor 304”; ¶24: “the investors 305 recognize a stream of income and the TRAC amount from the rent payments received from SPE 303 under the lease agreement”; ¶25: “At step S404, the SPE lessor 304 leases the sold portfolio assets to the SPE lessee 303 for a predetermined period. The predetermined period may be based upon a useful economic life of the "sold portfolio" of assets”)
a productization unit configured to set the fund product, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the management cost, the profit/loss of the fund, and the profit/loss of the investor (¶2: “an asset-backed security ("ABS") is a security, such as a bond or a note, that is backed by a pool of assets, such as automobile loans, automobile leases, railcar leases, airplane leases, credit card receivables, or student loans… The AFC 101 is referred to as a "Servicer" because the AFC 101 usually is responsible for servicing and maintaining the leased vehicles from the proceeds of the ABS”; ¶9: “The TRAC may specify that, at the end of the predetermined period, if an actual residual value realized from the sale or disposition of the transferred assets is less than an estimated residual value of the transferred assets at an inception of a lease, a payment (the "TRAC") is made to the investing entity 105 in an amount corresponding to the difference between the estimated residual value and the actual residual value”; Fig 4, ¶23: “the finance company 301 capitalizes, or funds, the SPE lessee 303 with the sold portfolio, the collateral portfolio, and a cash accumulation/reserve account ("CAA"), known in the art. At step S403, the SPE lessee 303 sells the sold portfolio to the SPE lessor 304, but retains ownership of the collateral portfolio and the CAA. The SPE lessor 304 accordingly pays the SPE lessee 303 the sales price of the sold portfolio. To fund the purchase of the sold portfolio, the investors 305 make a contribution in aggregate equal to 100% of the sale price of the sold portfolio to the SPE lessor 304”; ¶25: “At step S404, the SPE lessor 304 leases the sold portfolio assets to the SPE lessee 303 for a predetermined period. The predetermined period may be based upon a useful economic life of the "sold portfolio" of assets… the predetermined period is generally up to 80% of the useful economic life of the transferred assets… the FC 301 may provide indemnities and/or guarantees to the SPE lessor 304 in the event that the SPE lessee 303 is unable to meet its obligations under the lease. At step S405, the SPE lessee 303 may sublease the sold portfolio assets to user lessees 306, which may be consumers”; ¶27: “The lease also may include a Terminal Rental Adjustment Clause ("TRAC provision”) … the sold portfolio assets have an estimated residual value, or "TRAC amount", that indicates the estimated value of the assets at the end of the lease. Because the investors 305 are the owners of the sold portfolio assets (via the SPE lessor 304), the investors rely upon this estimated residual value as an indicator of the value of their investment upon termination of the lease. The TRAC provision requires that a payment be made from the SPE lessee 303 to the SPE lessor 304 if the actual residual value of the sold portfolio assets at the end of the lease is less than the TRAC amount. The payment may be in an amount corresponding to the difference between the TRAC amount and the actual residual value and may be capped at a predetermined percentage of the price that the SPE lessor 304 paid to the SPE lessee 303 at inception for the sold portfolio assets”; ¶28: “FIGS. 5 and 6A to 6D illustrate the reporting for a $100 million investment, according to an embodiment of the present invention… The Taxable Income column 502 represents income recorded for tax purposes, and reflects the front-loaded depreciation deductions allowable for tax purposes (see FIG. 6B)”)
a profit/loss calculation unit configured to calculate a profit/loss amount of the fund and a profit/loss amount of the investor, based on the rental fee, the purchase cost, the sale price, the depreciation cost, and the management cost (Fig 1, Fig 2, ¶4: “The GAAP Income column 201 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and the Taxable Income column 202 represents income recorded for tax purposes. GAAP, as referred to herein, is intended to include statutory accounting principles, as are known to those skilled in the art, for companies that are regulated, such as insurance companies”; Fig 4, ¶9: “a Terminal Rental Adjustment Clause ("TRAC provision") is provided to further enhance investment attractiveness to investors. The TRAC provision allows the investors to receive the tax benefits of owning the assets while minimizing the risk of a change to the residual value of the assets. The TRAC may specify that, at the end of the predetermined period, if an actual residual value realized from the sale or disposition of the transferred assets is less than an estimated residual value of the transferred assets at an inception of a lease, a payment (the "TRAC") is made to the investing entity 105 in an amount corresponding to the difference between the estimated residual value and the actual residual value. Accordingly, if the actual residual value is greater than the estimated residual value at the end of the predetermined period, the SPE 103, or "transferor," is entitled to such excess”; ¶24: “For accounting purposes, the investors 305 recognize a stream of income and the TRAC amount from the rent payments received from SPE 303 under the lease agreement”; ¶25: “At step S404, the SPE lessor 304 leases the sold portfolio assets to the SPE lessee 303 for a predetermined period. The predetermined period may be based upon a useful economic life of the "sold portfolio" of assets… the predetermined period is generally up to 80% of the useful economic life of the transferred assets… the FC 301 may provide indemnities and/or guarantees to the SPE lessor 304 in the event that the SPE lessee 303 is unable to meet its obligations under the lease. At step S405, the SPE lessee 303 may sublease the sold portfolio assets to user lessees 306, which may be consumers”; ¶26: “by continually re-investing the proceeds of asset sales at lease termination, no taxable events occur during the lease between the SPE lessor 304 and the SPE lessee 303 as a result of a termination or maturity of an underlying lease with an end user. Accordingly, the duration of the lease between the SPE lessor 304 and the SPE lessee 303 may be extended beyond the length of a typical retail lease to an end user or sublease, in this case, which generally is two to four years. A longer lease duration between the SPE lessor 304 and the SPE lessee 303 means an increase in time that the investors 305 are able to extend their DTLs, thereby enhancing the effects of their DTLs.”; ¶27: “The lease also may include a Terminal Rental Adjustment Clause ("TRAC provision”) …the sold portfolio assets have an estimated residual value, or "TRAC amount", that indicates the estimated value of the assets at the end of the lease. Because the investors 305 are the owners of the sold portfolio assets (via the SPE lessor 304), the investors rely upon this estimated residual value as an indicator of the value of their investment upon termination of the lease. The TRAC provision requires that a payment be made from the SPE lessee 303 to the SPE lessor 304 if the actual residual value of the sold portfolio assets at the end of the lease is less than the TRAC amount. The payment may be in an amount corresponding to the difference between the TRAC amount and the actual residual value and may be capped at a predetermined percentage of the price that the SPE lessor 304 paid to the SPE lessee 303 at inception for the sold portfolio assets”; ¶28: “FIGS. 5 and 6A to 6D illustrate the reporting for a $100 million investment… The GAAP Income column 501 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and reflects the rental income received by the investor under the terms of the lease agreement (see FIG. 6A). The Taxable Income column 502 represents income recorded for tax purposes, and reflects the front-loaded depreciation deductions allowable for tax purposes (see FIG. 6B). The GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 equals the GAAP Income column 501 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95%, assuming a 35% federal tax rate and a 3% state tax rate (see FIG. 6C, dark-filled region). The Taxes Paid (Deductions Received) column 504 equals the Taxable Income column 502 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95% (see FIG. 6C, light-filled region). The Deferred Tax Liability column 505 equals the GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 minus the Taxes Paid column 504 and represents the DTL accumulated in each corresponding year. The Cumulative DTL column 506 represents the cumulative DTL for the corresponding year and each previous year (see FIG. 6D)”) Examiner interprets the GAAP, including but not limited to income recorded for tax purposes based on statutory accounting principes as teaching applicant’s profit/loss statement.
Giroux discloses all of the above limitations, Giroux does not distinctly describe the following limitations, but Yi however as shown discloses,
t mobile bodies (Figure 1, page 432, Abstract: Reusable rocket engines are the core components of reusable launch vehicles…subsystem design is based on the overall index allocation of an engine, therefore a multidisciplinary optimization approach is necessary”; page 433: col 1, ¶1: “The analysis of reusable rocket engines falls within the scope of systems engineering. Typically, the main goal in conceptual design is the selection of reasonable parameters. To this end, optimization methods should be used in rocket engine design, owing to the strong interdisciplinary nature of the system”; 2. Index System of a reusable rocket engine: Aside from lifespan, a number of additional technical indexes should be considered, such as performance, reliability, maintenance and cost”)
a depreciation calculation unit configured to calculate a depreciation cost for each of the t mobile bodies (Fig 1, page 433, Index System of a reusable rocket engine; page 433, column 1, Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) is usually used to ensure an optimal system design”; 2. Index System ¶1: “reusable rocket engines have longer designed lifespans and specific life index requirements… Aside from lifespan a number of additional technical indexes should be considered, such as performance, reliability, maintenance, and cost”; column 2, lines 6-8: “mathematical models must firstly be established as the basis of optimization; page 435, Fig 2 System optimization design platform; pages 435 and 436, column 1, 2.4 Cost model: The Lifecycle Cost (LCC) of a reusable rocket engine includes all direct and indirect costs of development, production, usage and retirement. Development costs include design, testing, and evaluation of parts… usage costs include fuel, launch, retrieval and maintenance costs… TRANSCOST model universal models for aerospace engineering cost evaluation. Within the parameter model, the TRANSCOST model has different Cost Estimation Relationships (CERs) for various costs”; page 436, 2.5 Maintenance model: Maintenance is necessary to keep a complex system in a reliable condition during the entire life cycle…related to system reliability, effective age, and life cycle cost…Preventive Model is applied in the usability index…Maintenance Repair …includes activities of basic maintenance and repairing or replacing for some components”; page 439, 4. Optimal design and discussion, ¶3: “According to the maintenance model, maintenance operations could reduce the effective ages of components…Fig 6. Reliability of the entire system gradually decreases as the flight job continues. 5. Conclusions (1) There is a restrict relationship between the lifespan and the maintenance index, which can affect the total life cycle cost”)
Applicant’s disclosure only generically recites at ¶80: “the depreciation calculation unit may calculate the depreciation cost for each of the t mobile bodies using a predetermined calculation formula that includes, at least, parameters including the number of uses and the useful life of one or more components (e.g., as calculated in FIG. 9)”. Yi does not explicitly recite “depreciation” however it does evaluate all direct and indirect costs of development, production, usage and retirement (Lifecycle Cost (LCC)) of a reusable rocket engine including development costs, (design, testing, and evaluation of pats), production (processing and assembly of the product), and usage costs (fuel, launch, retrieval and maintenance costs) using a TRANSCOST model for cost evaluation via a Cost Model. Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant’s limitation in light of the specification, Examiner interprets at least the cost model including but not limited to using the TRANSCOST model for providing different Cost Estimation Relationships (CERs) for various costs of the reusable rocket engine as taught by Yi as teaching calculating applicant’s depreciation cost.
a management cost acquisition unit configured to acquire a management cost including repair and maintenance costs associated with repair and maintenance of each of the t mobile bodies during the predetermined period (page 435, Fig 2 System optimization design platform; page 435, column 1, 2.4 Cost model: The Lifecycle Cost (LCC) of a reusable rocket engine includes all direct and indirect costs of development, production, usage and retirement. Development costs include design, testing, and evaluation of parts… usage costs include fuel, launch, retrieval and maintenance costs… TRANSCOST model universal models for aerospace engineering cost evaluation. within the parameter model, the TRANSCOST model has different Cost Estimation Relationships (CERs) for various costs”; col 2, ¶1: “indirect costs are those related to administrative management of the launch site, technical support, equipment maintenance and depreciation, and spare parts storage and transportation”; ¶3: Retrieval costs…after retrieving the engine, blowing, drying, and system checks are needed, followed by maintenance”; page 436, col 1, 2.5 Maintenance model: Maintenance is necessary to keep a complex system in a reliable condition during the entire life cycle…related to system reliability, effective age, and life cycle cost…Preventive Maintenance Model (PM) is applied in the usability index…PM includes a set of operations, such as periodical inspection, cleaning, lubrication, adjusting and so on…one typical PM action is taken into account to model the effect of maintenance to the engine which is Maintenance Repair (MR) …includes activities of basic maintenance and repairing or replacing for some components”; col 2, W. Index allocation based on multidisciplinary optimization, Step 3: A maintenance program is planned according to lifespan ,and then the overall cost is determined. The reliability model is central to the framework by connecting the disciplines of performance, maintenance and cost”; page 437, column 1, ¶3: “the relationship between the performance and reliability parameters was established, and the overall lifespan cost was estimated using the maintenance strategy as the cost model”; ¶4: “frequent maintenance is required to ensure safe flight, significantly adding to costs”; page 439, 4. Optimal design and discussion, Table 1, Table 2, Fig 4, Fig 5, ¶2: According to the maintenance model, maintenance operations could reduce the effective ages of components…a subsystem essentially becomes newer after a maintenance operation”; 5. Conclusions (1) There is a restrict relationship between the lifespan and the maintenance index, which can affect the total life cycle cost. Designers must balance the performance and cost indexes to ensure reliability throughout the entire engine lifecycle. (3) Multi-objective optimization is a comprehensive assessment that can be used to effectively select an integral set of design parameters for subsystems, including performance, lifespan, and maintenance”)
Applicant’s disclosure only generally discusses at ¶20: These management costs include the costs associated with launching the t reusable rockets RC (hereinafter referred to as "launching costs") and the costs associated with repairing and maintaining the t reusable rockets RC (hereinafter referred to as "repair and maintenance costs"), and ¶71: “a management cost acquisition unit (e.g., the management cost acquisition unit 304 in FIG. 5) configured to acquire a management cost including repair and maintenance costs associated with repair and maintenance of each of the t mobile bodies during the predetermined period”. Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation in light of the disclosure Examiner interprets at least the Cost Model and the Preventive Maintenance model as taught by Yi as teaching applicant’s management cost acquisition unit.
Giroux discloses method/system for providing an asset-backed investments (automobiles, motorcycles, airplanes, boats, ships, real property or any other capital asset) to investors that would otherwise not invest in asset backed securities (ABS), including, transferring ownership of assets, receiving lease payments and residual proceeds from the purchase or disposition of the asset(s) for the length of a lease. Giroux teaches that the transferred assets are leased from the investing entity for a predetermined period and may be subleased to consumers. The predetermined period may be based upon a useful life of the transferred assets. Giroux further discloses Terminal Rental Adjustment Clause (TRAC) provision which allows the investors to receive the tax benefits of owning the assets while minimizing the risk of a change to the residual value of the assets whereby a payment is made from the lessee to the lessor if the actual residual value of the sold portfolio assets at the end of the lease is less than the TRAC amount. Giroux further teaches that the lease may also include a like-kind exchange (LKE) feature whereby upon a sale of a leased asset, the proceeds of the sale be reinvested into a new like-kind asset to be leased.
Yi discloses multi-disciplinary optimization techniques for reusable rocket launch systems, specifically reusable rocket engine design via various mathematical models including performance, mass, cost reliability and maintenance models based on reusability, lifespan, and specific life index requirements while considering multi-disciplinary optimization. Yi further teaches
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention would have been motivated to combine the multi-disciplinary optimization techniques for reusable rocket launch systems as taught by Yi with the method/system for providing asset-backed investment instruments to investors of Giroux to achieve the claimed invention and there would have 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 USPQ2d1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The known multi-disciplinary optimization techniques for reusable rocket launch systems as taught by Yi would have been predictably resulted in an improved asset backed security (ABS) (i.e. reusable rocket launch system) which ensures reliability of the overall system throughout the entire lifecycle.
Giroux and Yi are directed to the same endeavor since they are related to management and maintenance of assets in a computing environment. Therefore, 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 techniques for providing asset backed investments of Giroux with the multi-objective optimization techniques for reusable rocket launch systems as taught by Yi since allows for selecting and balancing an integral set of design parameters for subsystems, including performance, lifespan and maintenance to reduce the ages of components, hence ensuring reliability of the overall system during the entire lifecycle (pages 435-436, 2. Cost Model, Maintenance Model, 3. Index allocation based on multidisciplinary optimization; page 440, 4. Optimal design and discussion, 5. Conclusions).
With respect to claim 2,
Giroux and Yi disclose all of the above limitations, Giroux further discloses,
wherein content of the fund product is represented by investment conditions, a cash flow, and a profit/loss statement (¶2: “To facilitate the transfer of ownership of the vehicles, without having to undergo the cost of retitling them, the AFC 101 typically identifies and designates a specific portfolio of leased vehicles in the trust and instructs the trust to issue a certificate representing the ownership of such portfolio including all cash flows assumed with such vehicles, such certificates sometimes referred to as special units of beneficial interest ("SUBI") or specific interest certificates ("SIC") or another similar name depending on the respective AFC 101. Therefore, when used, only the SUBI, SIC, etc., needs to be transferred in order to transfer ownership of the leased vehicles owned by the trust 102. The AFC 101 is referred to as a "Servicer" because the AFC 101 usually is responsible for servicing and maintaining the leased vehicles from the proceeds of the ABS”; ¶3: “The AFC 101 also typically forms a special purpose entity ("SPE") 103 to which the AFC 101 sells, transfers, and assigns the SUBI. The SPE 103 then typically transfers the SUBI to a newly formed statutory trust ("issuer") 104 in return for Class A certificates. The Class A certificates represent an equity interest in the issuer 104 and provide credit enhancement for other investors in the issuer 104. The Class A certificates are transferred to Class A certificate holders 106. The issuer 104 is the issuer of the ABS, because it issues notes to term ABS investors 105 in return for cash. Cash flows received by the issuer 104 from the SUBI, i.e., lease payments from the underlying users and residual proceeds from the purchase or disposition of the underlying vehicles, are used to service the obligations of the issuer 104 under the notes. The issuer 104 also pledges its assets to an Indenture Trustee 107 as security for the notes”; ¶4: “The GAAP Income column 201 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and the Taxable Income column 202 represents income recorded for tax purposes. GAAP, as referred to herein, is intended to include statutory accounting principles, as are known to those skilled in the art, for companies that are regulated, such as insurance companies”; ¶28: “FIGS. 5 and 6A to 6D illustrate the reporting for a $100 million investment… The GAAP Income column 501 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and reflects the rental income received by the investor under the terms of the lease agreement (see FIG. 6A). The Taxable Income column 502 represents income recorded for tax purposes, and reflects the front-loaded depreciation deductions allowable for tax purposes (see FIG. 6B). The GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 equals the GAAP Income column 501 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95%, assuming a 35% federal tax rate and a 3% state tax rate (see FIG. 6C, dark-filled region). The Taxes Paid (Deductions Received) column 504 equals the Taxable Income column 502 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95% (see FIG. 6C, light-filled region). The Deferred Tax Liability column 505 equals the GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 minus the Taxes Paid column 504 and represents the DTL accumulated in each corresponding year. The Cumulative DTL column 506 represents the cumulative DTL for the corresponding year and each previous year (see FIG. 6D)”)
With respect to claim 3,
Giroux and Yi disclose all of the above limitations, Giroux further discloses,
wherein the investment conditions include an investment amount by the investor, an annual loss amount of the investor during the predetermined period, and a final profit/loss (Figs 1-5, ¶4: “The GAAP Income column 201 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and the Taxable Income column 202 represents income recorded for tax purposes. GAAP, as referred to herein, is intended to include statutory accounting principles, as are known to those skilled in the art, for companies that are regulated, such as insurance companies”; ¶25: “the SPE lessor 304 leases the sold portfolio assets to the SPE lessee 303 for a predetermined period. The predetermined period may be based upon a useful economic life of the "sold portfolio" of assets. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the predetermined period is generally up to 80% of the useful economic life of the transferred assets”; ¶27: “The lease also may include a Terminal Rental Adjustment Clause ("TRAC provision"). At the inception of the lease, the sold portfolio assets have an estimated residual value, or "TRAC amount", that indicates the estimated value of the assets at the end of the lease… The TRAC provision requires that a payment be made from the SPE lessee 303 to the SPE lessor 304 if the actual residual value of the sold portfolio assets at the end of the lease is less than the TRAC amount”; ¶28: “FIGS. 5 and 6A to 6D illustrate the reporting for a $100 million investment… The GAAP Income column 501 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and reflects the rental income received by the investor under the terms of the lease agreement (see FIG. 6A). The Taxable Income column 502 represents income recorded for tax purposes, and reflects the front-loaded depreciation deductions allowable for tax purposes (see FIG. 6B). The GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 equals the GAAP Income column 501 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95%, assuming a 35% federal tax rate and a 3% state tax rate (see FIG. 6C, dark-filled region). The Taxes Paid (Deductions Received) column 504 equals the Taxable Income column 502 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95% (see FIG. 6C, light-filled region). The Deferred Tax Liability column 505 equals the GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 minus the Taxes Paid column 504 and represents the DTL accumulated in each corresponding year. The Cumulative DTL column 506 represents the cumulative DTL for the corresponding year and each previous year (see FIG. 6D)”)
With respect to claim 4,
Giroux and Yi disclose all of the above limitations, Giroux further discloses,
wherein the cash flow includes an investment amount of the fund, the rental fee, the sale price, the purchase cost, and the management cost (¶2: “The GAAP Income column 201 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and the Taxable Income column 202 represents income recorded for tax purposes. GAAP, as referred to herein, is intended to include statutory accounting principles, as are known to those skilled in the art, for companies that are regulated, such as insurance companies”; ¶3: Cash flows received by the issuer 104 from the SUBI, i.e., lease payments from the underlying users and residual proceeds from the purchase or disposition of the underlying vehicles, are used to service the obligations of the issuer 104 under the notes. The issuer 104 also pledges its assets to an Indenture Trustee 107 as security for the notes “; ¶22: “The sold portfolio constitutes the beneficial interest in a portfolio of leases, along with the cash flows and assets associated with the leases, that ultimately are to be sold to the SPE lessor 304. The collateral portfolio constitutes the beneficial interest in a portfolio of leases, along with the cash flows and assets associated with the leases, that ultimately are to be retained by the SPE lessee 303 and pledged to the SPE lessor 304 as security for SPE lessee 303's obligations under its lease with the SPE lessor 304”; ¶28: “FIGS. 5 and 6A to 6D illustrate the reporting for a $100 million investment, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The example illustrated in FIG. 5 uses automobiles as the sold portfolio assets, incorporates the LKE feature, and has a term of 7.5 years, which is assumed to be 80% of the useful economic life of the automobiles underlying the investment. The GAAP Income column 501 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and reflects the rental income received by the investor under the terms of the lease agreement (see FIG. 6A). The Taxable Income column 502 represents income recorded for tax purposes, and reflects the front-loaded depreciation deductions allowable for tax purposes (see FIG. 6B). The GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 equals the GAAP Income column 501 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95%, assuming a 35% federal tax rate and a 3% state tax rate (see FIG. 6C, dark-filled region). The Taxes Paid (Deductions Received) column 504 equals the Taxable Income column 502 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95% (see FIG. 6C, light-filled region). The Deferred Tax Liability column 505 equals the GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 minus the Taxes Paid column 504 and represents the DTL accumulated in each corresponding year. The Cumulative DTL column 506 represents the cumulative DTL for the corresponding year and each previous year (see FIG. 6D)”)
With respect to claim 5,
Giroux and Yi disclose all of the above limitations, Giroux further discloses,
wherein the profit/loss statement includes revenue including the rental fee and the sale price, expenses including the depreciation cost and the management cost, and a historical profit and a cumulative profit calculated based on the revenue and the expenses (Fig 1, Fig 2, ¶4: “The GAAP Income column 201 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and the Taxable Income column 202 represents income recorded for tax purposes. GAAP, as referred to herein, is intended to include statutory accounting principles, as are known to those skilled in the art, for companies that are regulated, such as insurance companies”; ¶28: “FIGS. 5 and 6A to 6D illustrate the reporting for a $100 million investment, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The example illustrated in FIG. 5 uses automobiles as the sold portfolio assets, incorporates the LKE feature, and has a term of 7.5 years, which is assumed to be 80% of the useful economic life of the automobiles underlying the investment. The GAAP Income column 501 represents income recorded as per the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, known in the art, and reflects the rental income received by the investor under the terms of the lease agreement (see FIG. 6A). The Taxable Income column 502 represents income recorded for tax purposes, and reflects the front-loaded depreciation deductions allowable for tax purposes (see FIG. 6B). The GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 equals the GAAP Income column 501 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95%, assuming a 35% federal tax rate and a 3% state tax rate (see FIG. 6C, dark-filled region). The Taxes Paid (Deductions Received) column 504 equals the Taxable Income column 502 multiplied by a tax rate of 36.95% (see FIG. 6C, light-filled region). The Deferred Tax Liability column 505 equals the GAAP Taxes Recorded column 503 minus the Taxes Paid column 504 and represents the DTL accumulated in each corresponding year. The Cumulative DTL column 506 represents the cumulative DTL for the corresponding year and each previous year (see FIG. 6D)”).
With respect to claim 6,
Giroux and Yi disclose all of the above limitations, Giroux further discloses,
wherein the productization unit executes a simulation in which a combination of the purchase cost, the sale price, the depreciation cost, the rental fee, the management cost, the profit/loss of the fund, and the profit/loss of the investor for each of the t mobile bodies is varied, and processing in the purchase/sale cost acquisition unit, the depreciation calculation unit, the rental fee acquisition unit, the management cost acquisition unit, and the profit/loss calculation unit is repeatedly executed (page 435, col 1, 2.4 Cost Model: “The Lifecycle Cost (LCC) of a reusable rocket engine includes all direct and indirect costs of development, production, usage, and retirement. Development costs include design, testing, and evaluation of parts, whereas production costs are associated with the processing and assembly of the product. Usage costs include fuel, launch, retrieval, and maintenance costs”; page 436, col 1 2.5 Maintenance model: “maintenance is related to system reliability, effective age, and life cycle cost) … one typical PM action is taken into account to model the effect of maintenance to the engine, which is Maintenance Repair (MR). It includes activities of basic maintenance and repairing or replacing for some components”; col 2, 3. Index allocation based on multidisciplinary optimization: “Multiple attempts and many iterations must be performed before the final result is obtained”; page 437, col 1, ¶3: “Based on the proposed model, a simulation of the static operating process was performed. Further, the relationship between the performance and reliability parameters was established, and the overall lifespan cost was estimated using the maintenance strategy as the cost model. The influence of optimization objectives on the design variables was investigated, and finally, an optimization was carried out using the genetic algorithm”; ¶439, col 2, ¶1: Multi-objective optimization is a comprehensive assessment that can be used to effectively select an integral set of design parameters for subsystems, including performance, lifespan and maintenance”)
Yi discloses multi-disciplinary optimization techniques for reusable rocket launch systems, specifically reusable rocket engine design via various mathematical models including performance, mass, cost reliability and maintenance models based on reusability, lifespan, and specific life index requirements. Yi further teaches a cost model comprising a Lifecycle Cost (LCC) of a reusable rocket engine that includes all direct (management of the launching site, operations before launch, flight control, propellant, and transportation to retrieve the engine) and indirect costs (administrative management of the launch site, technical support, equipment maintenance and depreciation, and spare parts storage and transportation) of development, production, usage, and retirement. Development costs include design, testing, and evaluation of parts, whereas production costs are associate with the processing and assembly of the product. Usage costs include fuel, launch, retrieval, and maintenance costs. Yi discloses a TRANSCOST model for analyzing aerospace engineering cost evaluation having different cost estimation relationships (CERs) for various costs. Yi teaches that multi-disciplinary optimization is a methodology that fully explores and utilizes the interactions between subsystems to design complex systems and that multiple attempts and many iterations must be performed before the final result is obtained.
Giroux and Yi are directed to the same endeavor since they are related to management and maintenance of assets in a computing environment. Therefore, 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 techniques for providing asset backed investments of Giroux with the multi-objective optimization techniques for reusable rocket launch systems as taught by Yi since allows for selecting and balancing an integral set of design parameters for subsystems, including performance, lifespan and maintenance via multiple attempts and many iterations before the final result is obtained (pages 435-436, 2. Cost Model, Maintenance Model, 3. Index allocation based on multidisciplinary optimization; page 440, 4. Optimal design and discussion, 5. Conclusions).
Giroux further discloses,
content of the fund product is determined such that the profit/loss amount of the fund becomes a desired amount of the investor (¶9: “The TRAC may specify that, at the end of the predetermined period, if an actual residual value realized from the sale or disposition of the transferred assets is less than an estimated residual value of the transferred assets at an inception of a lease, a payment (the "TRAC") is made to the investing entity 105 in an amount corresponding to the difference between the estimated residual value and the actual residual value. Accordingly, if the actual residual value is greater than the estimated residual value at the end of the predetermined period, the SPE 103, or "transferor," is entitled to such excess. Further, the TRAC provision allows the investors to record a larger residual value estimate since the residual value is effectively guaranteed and therefore requires less ongoing rental payments from the lessee, resulting in a greater deferred tax liability for the investors”; ¶25: “As part of the lease, the SPE lessee 303 may pledge the collateral portfolio and the CAA as security for its obligations under its lease with the SPE lessor 304. Separately or in addition, the FC 301 may provide indemnities and/or guarantees to the SPE lessor 304 in the event that the SPE lessee 303 is unable to meet its obligations under the lease. At step S405, the SPE lessee 303 may sublease the sold portfolio assets to user lessees 306, which may be consumers”)
With respect to claim 7,
Giroux and Yi disclose all of the above limitations, Yi further discloses,
wherein the productization unit executes a simulation regarding a combination of the profit/loss of the fund and the profit/loss of the investor in a case where at least part of the t mobile bodies becomes unusable before the predetermined period elapses (page 437, col 1, ¶4: “lifespan is an important consideration in the design of a reusable rocket engine, and therefore, the life index issued as a constraint. Constraints can complicate the relationships between design targets…frequent maintenance is required to ensure safe flight, significantly adding to costs. Fig 6, page 439, 4. Optimal design and discussion, ¶2: “According to the maintenance model, maintenance operations could reduce the effective ages of components. In other words, a subsystem essentially becomes newer after a maintenance operation. Additionally, the turbo pumps require more maintenance than those of other subsystems to meet system reliability requirements. The maintenance intervals become shorter because of the characteristics of the Weibull distribution. Reliability of the entire engine is shown in Fig.6.Reliability of the entire system gradually decreases as the flight job continues, but the reliability index is still above 0.98, which is the constraint of MDO”)
Giroux and Yi are directed to the same endeavor since they are related to management and maintenance of assets in a computing environment. Therefore, 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 techniques for providing asset backed investments of Giroux with the multi-objective optimization techniques for reusable rocket launch systems as taught by Yi since allows for selecting and balancing an integral set of design parameters for subsystems, including performance, lifespan and maintenance to reduce the ages of components, which can affect total life cycle costs (pages 435-436, 2. Cost Model, Maintenance Model, 3. Index allocation based on multidisciplinary optimization; page 440, 4. Optimal design and discussion, 5. Conclusions).
With respect to claim 8,
Giroux and Yi disclose all of the above limitations, Yi further discloses,
wherein the mobile bodies are reusable rockets (Figure 1, page 432, Abstract: Reusable rocket engines are the core components of reusable launch vehicles…subsystem design is based on the overall index allocation of an engine, therefore a multidisciplinary optimization approach is necessary”; page 433: col 1, ¶1: “The analysis of reusable rocket engines falls within the scope of systems engineering. Typically, the main goal in conceptual design is the selection of reasonable parameters. To this end, optimization methods should be used in rocket engine design, owing to the strong interdisciplinary nature of the system”; 2. Index System of a reusable rocket engine: Aside from lifespan, a number of additional technical indexes should be considered, such as performance, reliability, maintenance and cost”)
Giroux and Yi are directed to the same endeavor since they are related to management and maintenance of assets in a computing environment. Therefore, 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 techniques for providing asset backed investments of Giroux with the multi-objective optimization techniques for reusable rocket launch systems as taught by Yi since allows for selecting and balancing an integral set of design parameters for subsystems, including performance, lifespan and maintenance to reduce the ages of components, hence ensuring reliability of the overall system during the entire lifecycle (pages 435-436, 2. Cost Model, Maintenance Model, 3. Index allocation based on multidisciplinary optimization; page 440, 4. Optimal design and discussion, 5. Conclusions).
With respect to claim 9,
Giroux and Yi disclose all of the above limitations, Yi further discloses,
wherein the depreciation calculation unit calculates the depreciation cost using a predetermined formula that includes, at least, parameters including the number of uses and a useful life for one or more components of each of the t mobile bodies (Table 1, Table 2, page 435, Fig 2 System optimization design platform; page 435, column 1, 2.4 Cost model: The Lifecycle Cost (LCC) of a reusable rocket engine includes all direct and indirect costs of development, production, usage and retirement. Development costs include design, testing, and evaluation of parts… usage costs include fuel, launch, retrieval and maintenance costs… TRANSCOST model universal models for aerospace engineering cost evaluation. within the parameter model, the TRANSCOST model has different Cost Estimation Relationships (CERs) for various costs”; col 2, ¶1: “indirect costs are those related to administrative management of the launch site, technical support, equipment maintenance and depreciation, and spare parts storage and transportation”; ¶3: Retrieval costs…after retrieving the engine, blowing, drying, and system checks are needed, followed by maintenance- see at least usage costs equation (20), and total cost for each retrieval (23)”; page 436, col 1, 2.5 Maintenance model: Maintenance is necessary to keep a complex system in a reliable condition during the entire life cycle…related to system reliability, effective age, and life cycle cost…Preventive Maintenance Model (PM) is applied in the usability index…PM includes a set of operations, such as periodical inspection, cleaning, lubrication, adjusting and so on…one typical PM action is taken into account to model the effect of maintenance to the engine which is Maintenance Repair (MR) …includes activities of basic maintenance and repairing or replacing for some components”; col 2, W. Index allocation based on multidisciplinary optimization, Step 3: A maintenance program is planned according to lifespan ,and then the overall cost is determined. The reliability model is central to the framework by connecting the disciplines of performance, maintenance and cost”; page 437, column 1, ¶3: “the relationship between the performance and reliability parameters was established, and the overall lifespan cost was estimated using the maintenance strategy as the cost model”; ¶4: “frequent maintenance is required to ensure safe flight, significantly adding to costs”; page 439, 4. Optimal design and discussion, Table 1, Table 2, Fig 4, Fig 5, ¶2: According to the maintenance model, maintenance operations could reduce the effective ages of components…a subsystem essentially becomes newer after a maintenance operation”; 5. Conclusions (1) There is a restrict relationship between the lifespan and the maintenance index, which can affect the total life cycle cost. Designers must balance the performance and cost indexes to ensure reliability throughout the entire engine lifecycle. (3) Multi-objective optimization is a comprehensive assessment that can be used to effectively select an integral set of design parameters for subsystems, including performance, lifespan, and maintenance”)
Examiner interprets at least the Preventive Maintenance model, multi-disciplinary optimization methodology and reliability models as taught by Yi as teaching applicant’s depreciation calculation unit.
Giroux and Yi are directed to the same endeavor since they are related to management and maintenance of assets in a computing environment. Therefore, 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 techniques for providing asset backed investments of Giroux with the multi-objective optimization techniques for reusable rocket launch systems as taught by Yi since allows for selecting and balancing an integral set of design parameters for subsystems, including performance, lifespan and maintenance to reduce the ages of components, and cost indexes to ensure reliability throughout the entire engine life cycle (pages 435-436, 2. Cost Model, Maintenance Model, 3. Index allocation based on multidisciplinary optimization; page 440, 4. Optimal design and discussion, 5. Conclusions).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576502000905; Acta Astronautica, Volume 51, Issues 1-9, Pages 23-31, ISSN 0094-5765, Koelle, D. "Development costs of reusable launch vehicles" (Year: 2002), related to using multidisciplinary optimization whereby an optimization model is developed, and optimal design parameters are acquired for a reusable rocket engine for designing the index allocation of reusable rocket engines and takes into account the multidisciplinary nature of complex systems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360835211001045, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages 489-496, ISSN 0360-8352, Chang et al., "Joint determination of lease period and preventive maintenance policy for leased equipment with residual value" (Year: 2011) relating to constructing a mathematical/profit model, obtaining optimal maintenance policy, and optimal length of lease period to maximize expected total profit for leased equipment with residual value.
Jiang, (CN 108961064-A), “Fund Stocks Adjusting Method, System, Computer Apparatus, and Storage medium”, relating to a fund transaction system in preset fund stocks adjusting model, set in said fund stocks adjusting model target function, the target function for calculating fund stocks adjusting cost-minimizing value; the fund stocks adjusting model after obtaining the fund stocks adjusting information, using the objective function to calculate, obtaining fund stocks adjusting minimum cost value.
Hasan (WO 2020/219528 A1), “Aircraft, Satellite, Spacecraft, Technology, Infrastructure, and Resource Investment Management System, Server and Method”, relating to a method/system for utilizing a capitalized holding company structure maintaining an investment-grade credit rating, and serving as guarantor for a company’s operations within, aviation, space and infrastructure. The system is designed to be in the national interest and national in scope, and offering competitive advantages for investment in commercial airplanes, commercial satellites and spacecraft, and infrastructure development.
Belieres et al., US Patent Application Publication No US2021/0061494A1, “Distributed In-Space Transportation Network”, relating to the efficient transportation of small satellites in space which allows for optimization along key parameters (e.g. basic access to space, minimal space time, minimal fuel expenditure, transport vehicle marginal depreciation costs, and more), and coordination between the various in-space objects and actors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY L EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-3929. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730a-5p. 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/KIMBERLY L EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights