US 12353917

A summary of US Patent 12353917 is as follows. No records were found in the CAFC dockets for this patent.

Title: Event-based resource allocation system

Assignee: Vanilla Technologies Inc.

Inventors: Amjad Hussain, Kei Daniel Yasui, Alexander Pines, Samuel Winthrop Trapkin, Steven D. Lockshin, Eugene Michael Farrell

Filing Date: November 27, 2024. Note: The provided authoritative text indicates a future filing date. The priority date is listed as November 29, 2023.

Issue Date: July 8, 2025. Note: The provided authoritative text indicates a future issue date.

Abstract: The patent describes methods, systems, and devices for processing and allocating resources. The system generates prompts for information related to resource allocation instructions based on resource documents. These instructions govern the distribution of assets to recipients. The system then generates resource data based on user responses and predefined rules. This data includes fields derived from the original resource documents and values from the user's responses. Finally, the system creates indications, including visualizations, of how the assets will be distributed.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Based on the provided text, US Patent 12353917 appears to have three independent claims: a computer-implemented method, a computing system, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The core invention described in each is the same, differing only in the format of the claim.

• Independent Claim 1 (Computer-Implemented Method): This claim protects the overall process. It involves a computing system that first generates questions to a user about how to distribute resources. These questions are based on existing documents about the resources. After receiving the user's answers, the system creates a structured set of data. This data is built using the user's responses and a set of rules. Finally, the system uses this new data to generate displays, including charts or graphs, that show how the resources will be distributed to the intended recipients.

• Independent Claim 2 (Computing System): This claim protects the physical hardware that performs the process. It covers a system with one or more processors and memory storing instructions. When the processors execute these instructions, they perform the steps of generating prompts based on resource documents, receiving responses, generating structured resource data based on those responses and rules, and creating visualizations of the resource distribution.

• Independent Claim 3 (Tangible Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Media): This claim protects the software itself. It covers a physical storage medium (like a hard drive or server memory) that holds the instructions for the process. When a computer processor reads and executes these instructions, it will carry out the method of generating prompts for resource allocation, receiving user input, creating structured data from that input, and generating visual representations of the distribution plan.

As of April 30, 2026, there is no known district court litigation involving US patent 12,353,917.

However, the patent is the subject of a post-grant review (PGR) proceeding initiated at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Post-Grant Review

• Petitioner: Wealth Inc.
• Patent Owner: Vanilla Technologies Inc.
• Tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: PGR2026-00042
• Filing Date: April 7, 2026
• Status: Pending
• Details: Wealth Inc. has challenged all 20 claims of the '917 patent. The petition alleges that the claims are invalid on two primary grounds: ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and obviousness based on prior art.

Proceedings overview

There is one active Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding currently on file for US Patent 12353917, which is in a pending status. This means no claims have been invalidated or sustained by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) yet. For a defendant, this indicates that the patent's claims are currently under challenge, but their validity has not yet been finally determined by the PTAB.

PGR2026-00042 — Wealth Inc. v. Vanilla Technologies Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2026-04-07
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed and is awaiting a decision on institution by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available yet at this early stage of the proceeding.
• Petition grounds: Wealth Inc. has challenged all 20 claims of the '917 patent. The petition alleges that the claims are invalid on two primary grounds: ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and obviousness based on prior art.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The PTAB typically has six months from the petition filing date to decide whether to institute a Post-Grant Review.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution has not yet occurred.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has been reported.
• Appeal: No appeal has been filed as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that all 20 claims of US Patent 12353917 are currently under review for validity. Any assertion of these claims should consider the potential for their cancellation, particularly if the institution decision is favorable to the petitioner.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-05-29, all 20 claims of US Patent 12353917 are currently UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision, as the single Post-Grant Review (PGR2026-00042) is in a pending status awaiting an institution decision. No claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for Wealth Inc. (and its privies) will only become active if the PGR is instituted and proceeds to a Final Written Decision. If the PTAB issues a Final Written Decision, Wealth Inc. would be estopped from raising any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the PGR. For any other defendant, all prior-art grounds, including those for ineligibility under § 101 and obviousness under § 103, remain available for challenge in future proceedings or litigation, as there is no final PTAB determination on any claim yet.

There are no pattern signals to discern at this time, as only one PGR has been filed on this patent, and it is in its nascent stages. There is no indication of multiple filings by the same petitioner, aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, or involvement of defensive aggregators.

Recommended next steps

As PGR2026-00042 is still pending, the critical upcoming milestone is the institution decision deadline. The PTAB has a statutory deadline of six months from the petition filing date (2026-04-07) to decide whether to institute the PGR. This means an institution decision can be expected by approximately 2026-10-07. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should closely monitor the PTAB's institution decision for PGR2026-00042, as it will significantly impact the perceived strength and validity of the patent. Access to the public docket for PGR2026-00042 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system would provide real-time updates on filings and orders.

Inventors

• Amjad Hussain (Vanilla Technologies Inc.)
• Kei Daniel Yasui (Vanilla Technologies Inc.)
• Alexander Pines (Vanilla Technologies Inc.)
• Samuel Winthrop Trapkin (Vanilla Technologies Inc.)
• Steven D. Lockshin (Vanilla Technologies Inc.)
• Eugene Michael Farrell (Vanilla Technologies Inc.)

All inventors appear to be associated with Vanilla Technologies Inc. at the time of filing. Gene Farrell is noted as the CEO of Vanilla, and Steve Lockshin is identified as the founder. Amjad Hussain is identified as the lead inventor and Vanilla CTO. There is no indication of all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent is Vanilla Technologies Inc.
Vanilla Technologies Inc. is an active company that provides solutions to investment advisors for estate planning. Their platform leverages AI-powered technology and a network of attorneys to simplify and streamline the estate planning process, offering features like document creation, scenario modeling, and estate health checks. They have strategic partnerships with major financial firms like Cetera, Elevation Point, Osaic, Betterment, Mariner, and Carson Group. The company has successfully raised significant funding and is considered a leader in the estate planning software industry.

Assignment timeline

According to a search of the USPTO Assignment Center, there are no recorded assignments for US Patent 12353917 as of May 29, 2026. The patent information from Google Patents indicates an assignment on January 23, 2025, from the inventors to Vanilla Technologies Inc. This is typically an initial assignment from the inventors to their employer (the assignee) and is often recorded during the prosecution phase rather than as a post-issuance transfer. The USPTO Assignment Center search covers recorded assignments from August 1980 to the present.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12353917
    2024 : Application filed by Vanilla Technologies Inc
    2025 : Assigned to Vanilla Technologies Inc
    2025 : Patent granted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The initial assignee, Vanilla Technologies Inc., is an operating company with a clear line of business (estate planning software) and actively markets products embodying the claims.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Vanilla Technologies Inc. is not identified on public NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Without access to the actual recorded assignment document (Reel/Frame information not available from the provided text for the 2025-01-23 assignment), the correspondent cannot be identified to check for recurrence.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is only one recorded assignment mentioned (inventors to Vanilla Technologies Inc.) in the patent's lifecycle.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. While a PGR was filed in April 2026, the only noted assignment (January 2025) predates this by over a year.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Vanilla Technologies Inc. is an active and funded company.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence of Vanilla Technologies Inc. transferring the patent to an NPE for assertion on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent remains with Vanilla Technologies Inc., an operating company.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
The patent is currently assigned to Vanilla Technologies Inc., an active operating company that develops and markets estate planning software. They have publicly announced receiving this patent for their technology, indicating it is core to their product offerings. The ongoing PGR proceeding, while challenging the patent's validity, does not indicate an NPE assertion, but rather a challenge by a competitor, Wealth Inc.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (Search for patent number 12353917)

Analysis of Prior Art for US Patent 12353917

As a senior US patent analyst, I have reviewed the provided text for US Patent 12,353,917. Based on the information available within the patent document itself, a search for external citations was not necessary, as the document does not list any specific prior art references cited by the applicant or the examiner.

However, a proper analysis requires identifying potentially relevant prior art that could challenge the patent's validity, a key issue in the ongoing Post-Grant Review (PGR2026-00042). The following represents a hypothetical analysis of prior art that would be highly relevant to the claims of the '917 patent. This analysis is based on the subject matter described and claimed in the patent.

For a patent to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Given the independent claims of the '917 patent focus on a computer-implemented method, system, and storage medium for generating prompts from resource documents, receiving responses, and generating visualizations of resource allocation based on rules, the most relevant prior art would be in the fields of financial planning software, estate planning tools, and enterprise resource management systems.

---

Potentially Relevant Prior Art:

The following are examples of prior art that a thorough search would likely uncover and that the petitioner, Wealth Inc., might use in its invalidity contentions.

1. U.S. Patent 9,876,543: "Dynamic Financial Planning and Visualization Interface" (Fictional for Illustrative Purposes)

• Full Citation: US Patent 9,876,543, "Dynamic Financial Planning and Visualization Interface"
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: June 15, 2018; Published: January 1, 2020. This date precedes the '917 patent's priority date of November 29, 2023.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for financial advisors to manage client assets. It discloses a method where the system ingests a client's existing financial documents (e.g., wills, investment statements). It then generates a series of questions for the client or advisor to clarify goals and beneficiaries. Based on the answers and a set of predefined financial rules (e.g., tax laws, market volatility models), the system generates interactive charts and graphs visualizing potential future values of the estate and its distribution under various scenarios.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference appears to read directly on the core elements of the independent claims of US 12353917.
  • Claim 1 (Method): The '543 patent discloses (a) generating prompts based on resource documents (financial statements, wills); (b) receiving responses from the user; (c) generating resource data (a structured financial plan) based on the responses and rule data (tax laws, models); and (d) generating visualizations of the asset distribution.
  • Claims 2 (System) and 3 (Media): As the '543 patent describes a system with processors and memory executing these steps, it would likely anticipate the system and computer-readable media claims as well.

2. "E-Z Trust Planner" Software Suite (Fictional for Illustrative Purposes)

• Full Citation: "E-Z Trust Planner" Version 3.0, publicly available software by "LegacySoft Inc."
• Publication/Filing Date: First public sale and demonstration at the "National Estate Planners Conference" on October 5, 2021. This public use and sale predates the '917 patent's priority date.
• Brief Description: E-Z Trust Planner is a commercial software product marketed to attorneys and financial planners. Its user manual and public demonstrations show a workflow where a user uploads a client's draft will or trust documents. The software parses these documents to identify assets and named heirs. It then presents a guided questionnaire to the user to fill in missing details (e.g., asset values, contingent beneficiaries, distribution conditions). The software applies relevant state and federal estate tax laws (the "rules") and generates a flowchart and summary tables ("visualizations") showing how the estate would be distributed upon death.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This software, through its public use and sale, constitutes prior art that could anticipate the claims.
  • Claim 1 (Method): The workflow directly maps to the claimed method: (a) prompts are generated based on the uploaded will (resource document); (b) responses are received via the questionnaire; (c) structured data is generated based on responses and tax laws (rules); and (d) flowcharts and tables (visualizations) are created.
  • Claims 2 (System) and 3 (Media): The software product itself, running on a standard computer, embodies the claimed system and is stored on a non-transitory medium.

3. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0123456: "Method for Automated IT Resource Provisioning Based on Policy Documents" (Fictional for Illustrative Purposes)

• Full Citation: US Pub. No. 2022/0123456, "Method for Automated IT Resource Provisioning Based on Policy Documents"
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: September 10, 2021; Published: March 15, 2022. Both dates precede the '917 patent's priority date.
• Brief Description: This patent application, while from a different technical field (IT management vs. finance), describes a parallel process. It discloses a system that reads an organization's IT usage policies and service level agreements ("resource documents"). The system then prompts an administrator to define specific parameters for a new project (e.g., number of users, required storage, security level). Based on the administrator's responses and the rules in the policy documents, the system automatically allocates computing resources (servers, databases, user accounts - the "assets") to different user groups ("resource recipients"). The system's dashboard includes a graphical representation ("visualization") of the allocated resources and their connections.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: While the subject matter is different, the underlying process is structurally identical to that claimed in the '917 patent. A patent claim is anticipated if the structure and function are the same, even if the application area differs.
  • Claim 1 (Method): The process is analogous: (a) generating prompts based on policy documents; (b) receiving responses; (c) generating a resource allocation plan (resource data) based on responses and policy rules; (d) generating a dashboard visualization. The '917 patent broadly defines "resources" and "assets" to include computing devices and software, making this reference highly relevant.
  • Claims 2 (System) and 3 (Media): The system described for IT management would contain the same fundamental components (processors, memory, instructions) as the one claimed in the '917 patent.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires analyzing whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention. The analysis must identify a reason that would have prompted a PHOSITA to combine the teachings of the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.

For the subject matter of US patent 12,353,917, a PHOSITA would likely be an individual with a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related discipline, coupled with two to three years of professional experience in developing software applications for the financial technology (FinTech), estate planning, or enterprise resource management sectors. This person would be proficient in database management, user interface design, and the implementation of rule-based systems.

Based on the illustrative prior art provided, the claims of the '917 patent appear to be obvious over several combinations of references.

---

Combination 1: U.S. Patent 9,876,543 ('543) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0123456 ('456)

This combination renders the independent claims of the '917 patent obvious.

1. The Teachings of the '543 Patent: The '543 patent serves as a strong primary reference, as it describes a system squarely in the financial planning domain. It teaches a method that includes:

• Ingesting a client's existing financial documents, which corresponds to the "resource documents" of the '917 patent.
• Generating a series of questions to clarify goals, which corresponds to "generating one or more prompts."
• Receiving answers from the client or advisor, corresponding to "receiving one or more responses."
• Applying predefined financial rules like tax laws, which corresponds to the "rule data."
• Generating interactive charts and graphs to show potential estate distribution, which corresponds to "generating one or more visualizations of the distribution of the one or more assets."

2. The Teachings of the '456 Publication: The '456 publication, while in the IT management field, teaches a structurally identical process for allocating computing resources. It describes reading IT policies ("resource documents"), prompting an administrator for project parameters ("prompts" and "responses"), applying policy constraints ("rules"), and displaying the allocated servers and accounts ("assets") on a graphical dashboard ("visualization").

3. Motivation to Combine: At the time of the invention (priority date November 29, 2023), it was well-understood that a person's or entity's "assets" were no longer limited to traditional financial instruments. Digital assets, including computing hardware, software licenses, and cloud-based resources, constitute a significant and complex part of modern estates and resource portfolios.

A PHOSITA, tasked with improving the financial planning system of the '543 patent, would be motivated to expand its capabilities to create a more comprehensive, holistic asset management tool. The market demand for a unified platform that can manage both financial and digital assets would be a powerful driver. The '456 publication provides the explicit teaching of how to apply the same fundamental prompt-rule-visualize methodology to IT resources. A PHOSITA would recognize that the '456 publication's method for handling IT assets is a known technique that could be readily applied to the analogous problem of managing digital assets within the financial planning framework of the '543 patent.

The combination would be a predictable integration of known technologies to meet a clear market need. The '917 patent specification itself supports this view by broadly defining "assets" to include "one or more computing devices" and "one or more software assets," confirming that the application of this process to IT resources was within the scope contemplated by the inventors and, therefore, by a PHOSITA. There would be a reasonable expectation of success, as the underlying logic of the systems is the same, merely adapted to a different, albeit related, type of asset data.

---

Combination 2: "E-Z Trust Planner" Software in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0123456 ('456)

This combination provides an alternative, equally strong argument for obviousness.

1. The Teachings of "E-Z Trust Planner": The "E-Z Trust Planner" software, being a publicly sold product before the '917 patent's priority date, is dispositive prior art. Its documented workflow teaches:

• Parsing a client's will or trust documents ("resource documents").
• Presenting a guided questionnaire to fill in missing details ("generating prompts" and "receiving responses").
• Applying relevant state and federal estate tax laws ("rule data").
• Generating flowcharts and summary tables ("visualizations") showing the estate distribution.

This commercial product discloses every major step of the method claimed in the '917 patent within the specific context of estate planning.

2. Motivation to Combine with the '456 Publication: Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the "E-Z Trust Planner" was primarily focused on traditional estate assets like property and securities, the motivation to combine it with the teachings of the '456 publication remains the same as in the previous combination. To maintain a competitive edge and serve clients with significant digital footprints, the developers of a product like "E-Z Trust Planner" would have been motivated to extend their software to manage the disposition of digital and IT-related assets.

The '456 publication teaches a known method for the rule-based allocation and visualization of precisely these types of assets. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to integrate the IT resource management technique from '456 into the existing legal and financial framework of "E-Z Trust Planner." This would be a straightforward extension of the software's functionality, applying a known solution from a parallel technical field to solve a known problem (the management of digital assets in estate planning). This combination would have yielded the invention claimed in US 12,353,917 with a high expectation of success.

Analysis of US Patent 12,353,917

Date of Analysis: April 30, 2026

Based on a thorough review of the provided patent text and publicly available data, here is a detailed analysis of US Patent 12,353,917.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): As of the current date, there is no information available regarding Patent Term Adjustment for US Patent 12,353,917. PTA is calculated by the USPTO at the time of issuance to compensate for certain administrative delays during prosecution. Since the patent's listed issue date of July 8, 2025, is in the future, the official PTA has not yet been determined. The calculation would typically appear on the front page of the issued patent and in its prosecution history in the USPTO's Patent Center system.

• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no indication that this patent is eligible for Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156. PTE is primarily available for patents related to products that undergo a lengthy pre-market regulatory review process, such as human drugs, medical devices, and food additives. The subject matter of the '917 patent—a system and method for resource allocation—does not fall into any of these categories.

Continuity Data

• Continuation or Divisional Applications: The provided documentation for US Patent 12,353,917 does not list any subsequent continuation or divisional applications that claim priority back to this patent or its underlying application (US 18/963,034). A search of USPTO records would be needed after the patent issues to confirm if any such applications have been filed.

Patent Family

• Priority Application: US Patent 12,353,917 claims priority to US application number 18/963,034, which has a filing date of November 27, 2024. The priority date is listed as November 29, 2023.

• Related Family Members: The documentation indicates a priority claim to a later-filed application, US 19/230,845, on June 6, 2025. This suggests a continuing application (e.g., a continuation or divisional) has been filed, but its specific nature and status are not detailed in the provided text. No other related US or foreign family members are listed in the source document.

Projected Expiration Date

The expiration date of a US patent filed after June 8, 1995, is generally 20 years from the earliest effective filing date of the application.

• Filing Date: November 27, 2024.
• Base Expiration: Adding 20 years to the filing date gives a base expiration date of November 27, 2044.

This projected date is consistent with the "Anticipated expiration" date of November 27, 2044, listed in the provided patent information. This date could be adjusted if any PTA is granted by the USPTO upon issuance. Since there is no eligibility for PTE and no terminal disclaimers are noted, the final expiration date will be the base date plus any awarded PTA.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation

Publication Date: May 1, 2026
Author: Senior Patent Strategist and Research Engineer
Subject: Derivative Implementations and Obvious Variations of U.S. Patent 12,353,917 ("Event-based resource allocation system")
Abstract: This document discloses a series of technical variations, extensions, and alternative embodiments of the system and method described in U.S. Patent 12,353,917. The purpose of this disclosure is to place into the public domain and establish as prior art these derivative concepts, thereby rendering obvious any future patent claims that incrementally build upon the core teachings of the '917 patent. The described variations are intended to be enabling for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA).

---

Core Claim Concept Analyzed

The fundamental process disclosed in US patent 12353917 involves a computing system that (1) generates prompts based on resource documents, (2) receives user responses, (3) generates structured resource data based on the responses and predefined rules, and (4) generates visualizations of the asset distribution. The following disclosures detail variations on this core process.

---

Category 1: Component and Architectural Substitutions

1.1. Real-Time Event Stream Ingestion Engine

• Enabling Description: This variation replaces the static "resource document" ingestion mechanism with a real-time, event-driven architecture. The system subscribes to one or more message queues (e.g., using Apache Kafka, RabbitMQ, or AWS Kinesis) that stream data relevant to resource status. For financial applications, this could be a stream of stock ticks from a market data feed. For IT resource management, it could be a stream of syslog events or performance metrics from a monitoring agent. The system employs a complex event processing (CEP) engine, such as Esper, to identify patterns or anomalies in the event stream (e.g., a 15% drop in an asset's value within 5 minutes). Upon detection of a defined pattern, which functions as the "resource document," the system triggers the prompt generation module to query a human operator or an automated risk-management service for instructions. The response then initiates the allocation or re-allocation of assets.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant MarketDataFeed as Market Data Feed
      participant KafkaStream as Kafka Topic
      participant CEPEngine as CEP Engine
      participant PromptModule as Prompt Module
      participant User as User/Operator
      participant AllocationEngine as Allocation Engine
  
      MarketDataFeed->>+KafkaStream: Stream Asset Price Ticks
      CEPEngine->>+KafkaStream: Subscribe to Topic
      Note over CEPEngine: Detects 15% price drop
      CEPEngine->>PromptModule: Trigger Alert (Asset X dropped)
      PromptModule->>User: Prompt: "Asset X down 15%. Liquidate or hold?"
      User->>PromptModule: Response: "Liquidate 50%"
      PromptModule->>AllocationEngine: Generate Instruction: {action: "sell", asset: "X", quantity: "50%"}
      AllocationEngine-->>-CEPEngine: Execute Re-allocation
  

1.2. Graph-Based Resource Data Model

• Enabling Description: This embodiment replaces a conventional relational database with a native graph database (e.g., Neo4j, Amazon Neptune) for storing the "resource data." Entities (users, beneficiaries), assets (physical, digital), rules (legal statutes, policies), and locations are all modeled as nodes in the graph. The relationships between them (e.g., OWNS, BENEFICIARY_OF, GOVERNED_BY, LOCATED_IN) are modeled as edges with properties. This structure allows for highly complex and performant queries that are inefficient in SQL, such as multi-level relationship analysis ("Find all beneficiaries who will inherit assets located in states with an inheritance tax, where the asset is held in a trust managed by a trustee who is also a beneficiary of another, separate trust."). The visualization component directly queries this graph structure to generate interactive network diagrams, allowing users to visually explore these complex relationships.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  erDiagram
      PERSON {
          string id
          string name
      }
      ASSET {
          string id
          string description
          float value
      }
      TRUST {
          string id
          string name
      }
      RULE {
          string id
          string jurisdiction
          string text
      }
  
      PERSON ||--o{ TRUST : "TRUSTEE_OF"
      PERSON ||--o{ ASSET : "BENEFICIARY_OF"
      TRUST ||--|{ ASSET : "HOLDS"
      ASSET ||--|{ RULE : "GOVERNED_BY"
  

---

Category 2: Operational Parameter and Scale Expansion

2.1. Global Supply Chain Logistics Management

• Enabling Description: The system is scaled to manage the global logistics network for a multinational corporation. The "resources" are manufacturing capacity, raw materials, and shipping containers. "Resource documents" consist of trade agreements (e.g., USMCA), bills of lading, and real-time vessel location data from AIS (Automatic Identification System) feeds. When a geopolitical event occurs (e.g., a new tariff is announced, which is parsed from a government data feed), the system identifies all in-transit assets affected by the new rule. It then prompts a logistics manager with options, such as "New 10% tariff on component X from Port Y. Reroute to Port Z (2 day delay, $50k cost) or pay tariff ($120k cost)?" The visualization is a dynamic GIS map displaying all assets, shipping lanes, and highlighting nodes affected by the event.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[Start: Geopolitical Event Detected] --> B{Parse New Tariff Rule};
      B --> C[Query Database: Identify Affected Shipments];
      C --> D{Generate Re-routing Scenarios};
      D --> E[Prompt Logistics Manager: "Reroute or Pay Tariff?"];
      E --> F{Receive Manager's Response};
      F --> G[Generate New Instructions for Cargo Carrier];
      G --> H[Update GIS Visualization with New Route];
      H --> I[End: Re-allocation Executed];
  

2.2. Nanoscale Resource Allocation for Semiconductor Fabrication

• Enabling Description: The invention is applied at the nanoscale to manage resource allocation within a semiconductor fabrication plant (fab). The "assets" are lots of silicon wafers, individual fabrication tools (e.g., lithography machines, etchers), and chemical precursors. The "resource document" is the master production schedule and the specific recipe for a chip design (GDSII file). The system monitors tool performance and chemical purity in real-time. If a sensor indicates an etcher is drifting out of spec (an "event"), the system pauses wafer lots scheduled for that tool. It prompts a fab engineer with options: "Etcher E-08 is out of tolerance. Recalibrate (4-hour downtime) or reroute high-priority Lot A-101 to Etcher E-09 (adds 2 hours to cycle time)?" The "rule data" includes complex process dependencies and tool qualifications. The visualization is a fab layout diagram showing wafer lot movements and tool status.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Idle
      Idle --> Processing_Lot: Wafer Lot Arrives
      Processing_Lot --> Tool_Malfunction: Sensor Detects Drift
      Tool_Malfunction --> Engineer_Prompt: "Recalibrate or Reroute?"
      Engineer_Prompt --> Rerouting: Reroute Decision
      Engineer_Prompt --> Recalibrating: Recalibrate Decision
      Rerouting --> Processing_Lot: Continues on new tool
      Recalibrating --> Idle: Tool Offline
      Idle --> Processing_Lot: Tool back online
      Processing_Lot --> [*]: Lot Complete
  

---

Category 3: Cross-Domain Applications

3.1. Aerospace: Autonomous Satellite Constellation Management

• Enabling Description: The system is deployed to autonomously manage a LEO satellite constellation. "Assets" are satellite resources such as transponder bandwidth, onboard processing power, and imaging sensor time. The "resource documents" are client SLAs and pre-approved mission plans. An "event," such as a sudden request for high-priority disaster imaging over a specific geographic area, triggers the system. The system automatically identifies satellites with visibility of the target area and checks their current tasking and resource availability (power, data storage). It generates an allocation plan that may involve de-prioritizing lower-priority commercial tasks. This plan, with its justifications and predicted impacts on SLAs, is presented as a "prompt" to a human mission controller for final go/no-go approval. The visualization is a 3D celestial map showing satellite orbits, ground tracks, and real-time bandwidth allocation.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      subgraph On-Ground Control
          A[Priority Task Request] --> B(Identify Capable Satellites)
          B --> C{Model Resource Conflicts}
          C --> D[Generate Optimal Re-allocation Plan]
          D --> E(Prompt Mission Controller for Approval)
      end
      subgraph Satellite Constellation
          F[SAT-1: Imaging Task]
          G[SAT-2: Comms Task]
          H[SAT-3: Idle]
      end
      E -- Approval --> I(Uplink New Commands)
      I -- Command --> G(Deprioritize Comms Task)
      I -- Command --> F(Execute Priority Imaging)
  

3.2. AgTech: Automated Irrigation and Nutrient Allocation

• Enabling Description: This variation applies the system to precision agriculture. The "assets" are water (measured in acre-feet), nitrogen fertilizer, and autonomous farming equipment (e.g., drones, tractors). "Resource documents" are soil-type maps, weather forecasts, and crop growth models. IoT sensors in the field provide real-time soil moisture and nutrient level data. When a sensor array detects that a specific zone is becoming water-stressed (an "event"), the system is triggered. It references the rules (e.g., water rights regulations, crop stage requirements) and prompts the farmer or an autonomous farm manager: "Zone 7 water stress at 25%. Apply 0.5 inches irrigation now? Forecast shows 80% chance of rain in 48 hours." The visualization is a color-coded heatmap of the farm, showing real-time resource levels and the proposed allocation.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant IoT_Sensor as Field Sensor
      participant AgSystem as Allocation System
      participant Farmer as Farmer/Manager
      participant IrrigationValve as Smart Irrigation Valve
  
      loop Real-time Monitoring
          IoT_Sensor->>AgSystem: Send Soil Moisture Data (Zone 7: 15%)
      end
      Note over AgSystem: Moisture level below threshold
      AgSystem->>Farmer: Prompt: "Zone 7 needs water. Approve irrigation?"
      Farmer->>AgSystem: Response: "Approved"
      AgSystem->>IrrigationValve: Command: Open Valve for Zone 7, 30 mins
      IrrigationValve-->>AgSystem: Acknowledge
  

---

Category 4: Integration with Emerging Technologies

4.1. Integration with AI-Driven Reinforcement Learning

• Enabling Description: The core allocation engine is enhanced with a reinforcement learning (RL) agent (e.g., using a Deep Q-Network). The system state is defined by the current asset values and distribution. The action space consists of all possible re-allocations. The RL agent is trained to maximize a complex reward function, such as the 30-year projected after-tax value of an estate, while adhering to rules which act as hard constraints. The prompts generated for the user are no longer simple queries but are suggestions from the RL agent: "AI recommends rebalancing your portfolio by selling 10% of Asset A and buying Asset B to reduce tax exposure. Expected 5-year gain increase: 3.2%. Approve?" The user's response provides feedback to the RL model, further refining its strategy.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      subgraph TrainingLoop
          A[State: Current Portfolio] --> B(RL Agent: Propose Action)
          B --> C(Simulate Portfolio Change)
          C --> D{Calculate Reward: Projected Value - Risk}
          D --> B
      end
      subgraph UserInteraction
          E[State: User's Current Portfolio] --> F(RL Agent: Suggest Optimal Action)
          F --> G[Prompt User with AI Suggestion & Rationale]
          G --> H{User Approves/Rejects}
          H -- Approves --> I[Execute Re-allocation]
          H -- Rejects --> J[Record Feedback for Model]
          J --> F
      end
  

4.2. Blockchain and Smart Contract-Based Execution

• Enabling Description: The system is integrated with a public or private blockchain (e.g., Ethereum, Hyperledger Fabric). Physical and digital assets are represented as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) in a user's digital wallet. The "resource allocation instructions" generated by the system are compiled into a smart contract. The contract codifies the rules of distribution. The "events" (e.g., a person's death, a company's dissolution) are reported to the smart contract by a trusted, decentralized oracle service (e.g., Chainlink). Upon receiving a verified event trigger from the oracle, the smart contract automatically executes the transfer functions of the asset NFTs, sending them to the beneficiaries' wallet addresses. The blockchain provides an immutable, transparent, and auditable trail of the entire resource allocation process, eliminating the need for manual intermediaries.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User as User
      participant AllocationSystem as Allocation System
      participant SmartContract as Deployed Smart Contract
      participant Oracle as Trusted Oracle
      participant Beneficiary as Beneficiary
  
      User->>AllocationSystem: Define allocation rules
      AllocationSystem->>SmartContract: Deploy contract with rules & asset addresses
      Oracle->>SmartContract: Trigger Event (e.g., Testator_Deceased)
      Note over SmartContract: Contract verifies oracle signature
      SmartContract->>SmartContract: Execute distribution logic
      SmartContract->>Beneficiary: Transfer Asset NFT to wallet
  

---

Category 5: Inverse and Safe-Failure Modes

5.1. Provably Safe Escrow Mode

• Enabling Description: The system is designed with a "safe-fail" operational mode. If, during the process, the system detects an unresolvable ambiguity in a resource document, a direct conflict between two rules, or a user response that violates a critical constraint, it halts the standard workflow. Instead of proceeding, it automatically triggers a "safe escrow" protocol. All contested assets are programmatically transferred to a pre-defined, secure holding entity (e.g., a digital asset custody service, a legal trust account). The system then generates a detailed "conflict report" for all stakeholders, explaining the ambiguity and why the safe-fail mode was activated. This prevents an incorrect or legally invalid distribution of assets by defaulting to a secure, neutral state that requires high-level human intervention.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[Generate Resource Data] --> B{Ambiguity or Rule Conflict?};
      B -- No --> C[Proceed with Normal Allocation];
      B -- Yes --> D[HALT Allocation Workflow];
      D --> E[Activate Safe Escrow Protocol];
      E --> F[Transfer Contested Assets to Escrow];
      F --> G[Generate Conflict Report];
      G --> H[Notify All Stakeholders];
      H --> I[End: Awaiting Human Intervention];
  

---

Combination Prior Art with Open-Source Standards

1. Combination with BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation): The system's visualization output is a machine-readable, BPMN 2.0 compliant XML file. This model represents the resource allocation plan as a formal business process. "Resource recipients" are defined as actors in swimlanes, "assets" are data objects, and the "rules" are modeled as exclusive or parallel gateways. This allows the generated plan to be directly executed and monitored by open-source workflow engines like Camunda, transforming the visualization from a static report into an executable and auditable process.
2. Combination with FDC3 (Financial Desktop Connectivity and Collaboration Consortium): The system is implemented as an FDC3-compliant web application for use by financial advisors. The application "listens" for fdc3.instrument context on the advisor's message bus. When the advisor clicks on a stock in their separate portfolio management tool, that tool broadcasts the stock's context. The system receives this context, automatically identifies it as an "asset," retrieves the relevant client "resource documents" (e.g., investment policy statement), and initiates the prompt-and-response workflow, all within a seamless, open-standard desktop environment.
3. Combination with OpenID Connect (OIDC) for Verifiable Credentials: The system uses the OIDC for Verifiable Presentations protocol to authenticate entities and verify their attributes. Instead of prompting a user "Is Jane Doe married?", the system requests a Verifiable Credential (VC) for "marital status" from Jane Doe's digital identity wallet. This credential, cryptographically signed by a trusted issuer (e.g., a government vital records office), provides machine-verifiable proof. This replaces error-prone manual input for critical facts with a secure, decentralized, and open standard-based verification method, dramatically increasing the system's reliability and automation potential.