Jump to content

Patent Application 17783713 - Method a system a computer program product and a - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 17783713 - Method a system a computer program product and a

Title: Method, a system, a computer program product and a service for determining an intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator

Application Information

  • Invention Title: Method, a system, a computer program product and a service for determining an intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator
  • Application Number: 17783713
  • Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2022-06-09T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2022-06-09T00:00:00.000Z
  • National Class: 705
  • National Sub-Class: 317000
  • Examiner Employee Number: 95038
  • Art Unit: 3629
  • Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 0
  • 103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text


    DETAILED ACTION

	Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .

Status of Claims
The following is a final office action. 
Claims [1-4 and 7-17] are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 11-13, and 15-16 have been amended see REMARKS December 18, 2024.
Claims 5 and 6 are newly cancelled see REMARKS December 18, 2024.

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. 
Claim limitations 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 and 12 invokes U.S.C. 112(f) as they recite the following claim limitations:
Claim 1: “a system comprising means for performing the method.”
Claim 12: “means for performing the method according to claim 1.”
It is unclear if the means for and arrangement configured to are specifically hardware or software elements as they could entail any part of a system for performing the method in claim 1. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the claim limitations of “a means for performing the method as being performed by generic computer elements such as being generic computer hardware capable of performing the claim functions of receiving and processing information.
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.


Claim limitation “Claims 1 and 12” invokes 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. 
Claims 1 and 12 invoke U.S.C. 112(f) as they recite the following claim limitations:
Claim 1: “a system comprising means for performing the method.”
Claim 12: “means for performing the method according to claim 1.”
It is unclear if the means for performing the method of claim 1 are specifying a specific hardware or software elements of the system necessary for performing the claimed method.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.

Therefore, Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12 are rejected under U.S.C. 112.

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.


Claim 17 of the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.  The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 recite “a service… wherein the service utilizes the method according to claim 1.” Therefore, claim 17 is understood to merely recite a computer service or a software to perform the method. As the claim recites software without recite appropriate structure to perform the recited claim limitations claim 17 is directed to non-statutory subject matter as being “software per se.” However, for the sake of compact prosecution the examiner will interpret claim 17 as being directed to eligible subject matter for the rest of the 101 analysis.

Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.

Step 1: claims 1-4 and 7-10 recite a method (i.e. a series of steps), claims 11-14 recite a system, and claim 15-16 recite a computer program product, and claim 17 recite a service therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.

Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?): 
The representative claims 1, 11, 13 and 15-16 recite: determining a sustainability indicator for an intermediate product, receiving a first input data (102, 202, 302) including internal information on the intermediate product, wherein the first input data (102, 202, 302) comprises information on at least one of: materials, manufacturing process phases, manufacturing parameters, physical parameters of the components of the intermediate product,  receive a second input data (104, 204, 304) including external information on raw material(s) used for the intermediate product, wherein the second input data (104, 204, 304) comprises information on at least one of: geographical origin, type, manufacturing process phases of raw material, process at least the first input data (102, 202, 302) according to a life cycle assessment method to assess an environmental impact of the intermediate product and produce an intermediate product-specific life cycle parameter, process at least the second input data (104, 204, 304) in order to produce an intermediate product-specific sustainability parameter, provide an intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator (108) comprising the intermediate product-specific life cycle parameter and the intermediate product-specific sustainability parameter, and associate the intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator (108) for the intermediate product.

The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to commercial or legal interaction. The claims recite a series of steps for determining a sustainability score or metric for a product during manufacturing. The claims recite a method for determining a sustainability indicator based on parameters pertaining to a product such as raw materials. Merely performing a series of steps to generate a sustainability indicator for a product during various phases of a production lifecycle to help indicate a level of sustainability is an abstract idea.
The examiner further finds that the claims are directed to a mental process. The claims recite a method of determining a sustainability indicator based on a plurality of product parameters. The claims therefore, recite a mental process as a person is capable of performing a series of steps of determining a sustainability indicator based on a series of received information such as internal and external information in their mind or with the help of basic tools such as pen and paper. Additionally, the claims recite steps and procedures that are similar to concepts the courts have identified as a mental process such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.

Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite; 
Claim 1: a system comprising means and transmitting.
Claim 11: A system and transmitting.
Claim 13: A system and transmitting.
Claim 15: A computer program product, comprising a computer code, wherein said computer code when executed by a processor causes a system at least to perform, and transmitting.
Claim 16: A computer program product executed by a processor and transmitting.
The additional element of generic computer elements to receive and transmit information as well as perform the abstract idea of generating a sustainability indicator are directed to mere instructions to apply a generic computer and technology to execute the method in the recited claim limitations, as merely using a computer platform to transmit, display, and manipulate information is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 

Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field but merely utilize the generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of obtaining information such as internal and external product-specific sustainability parameters and determine a sustainability score based on the parameters. Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more.

The dependent claims 2-4, 7-10, 12, 14, and 17 further narrow the abstract idea of determining a sustainability indicator for an intermediate product as recited in the independent claims 1, 11, 13, and 15-16 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea. 

The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 8 and 9: wireless or wired communication link, internet, radio network access, application program interface.
Claim 14: at least one processor at least one memory and at least one communication unit.
However, the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or being applied to perform the abstract idea. 

Therefore, claims 1-4 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.

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 (i.e., changing from AIA  to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2010/0274629) in view of Huizenga (US 2013/0066867).
Claims 1, 11, 13, and 15-16: Walker discloses (Claim 1) a method for determining a sustainability indicator for an intermediate product by a system (101, 201, 301) comprising means for performing the method, the method, comprising (Claim 11) a system (101, 201, 301) for determining a sustainability indicator for an intermediate product comprising a system to perform (Claim 13) a system (101, 201, 301) for determining a sustainability indicator for an intermediate product comprising a system configured to perform (Claim 15) a computer program product for determining a sustainability indicator for an intermediate product, comprising a computer code, wherein said computer code when executed by a processor causes a system at least to perform (Claim 16) A computer program product for determining a sustainability indicator of an intermediate product comprising executable instructions when executed by a processor are configured to: (Paragraph [0021]; [0023] systems and method are provided for facilitating sustainability score tracking monitoring in connection with a manufactured product as well as dynamic representation of the sustainability score. As used in the application the terms component, module, system, or the like can refer to a computer related entity, either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, or software in execution. For example, a component might by a process running on a processor, a processor, on object, a program, and/or a computer);
receiving a first input data (102, 202, 302) including internal information on the intermediate product, wherein the first input data (102, 202, 302) comprises information on at least one of: materials, manufacturing process phases, manufacturing parameters, physical parameters of the components of the intermediate product, (Paragraph [0007]; [0021]; [0026-0027]; system and method are provided for facilitating sustainability score tracking monitoring in connection with a manufactured product as well as dynamic representation of the sustainability score. For example, a status update can be received that describes or relates to an observed state of the product. Based upon this status update, an impact value associated with an impact that observed state of the product has upon one or more sustainability factors can be determined. This impact value can be applied to a current lifecycle sustainability score for the product. While the sustainability score can be applicable to the entire lifecycle for the product, potentially from extraction of the raw materials to disposal, the monitored state of the product can relate specifically to a post retail sale state of the product. Can employ one or more sensors for monitoring the state of the product with respect to a set of sustainability factors. Calculating or determination of impact value can be based upon one or more sustainability factors which can relate to e.g. energy consumption, water usage, emissions, raw materials, waste, worker safety, labor policy, regulator mandates, or the like. Given the examples provided in Table 1 and elsewhere, it can be appreciated that various sustainability factors can be employed to determine a sustainability score for the product as well as the impact of a wide variety of parameters); 
receiving a second input data (104, 204, 304) including external information on raw material(s) used for the intermediate product, herein the second input data (104, 204, 304) comprises information on at least one of: geographical origin, type, manufacturing process phases of raw material, (Paragraph [0007]; [0026]; [0029] can employ one or more sensors for monitoring the state of the product with respect to a set of sustainability factors. Calculating or determination of impact value can be based upon one or more sustainability factors which can relate to e.g. energy consumption, water usage, emissions, raw materials, waste, worker safety, labor policy, regulator mandates, or the like. For example, sustainability scores can be complied in connection with industries relating to mining, drilling, refining, or the like whereas sustainability scores can be associated with manufacturing business or the like);
processing at least the second input data (104, 204, 304) in order to produce an intermediate product-specific sustainability parameter (Paragraph [0005]; [0021]; [0026]; [0035]; the architecture can receive a status update associated with a state, use, operation, or configuration of a manufactured product. Based upon the parameters of the state of the product included in the status update, the architecture can determine an impact value to a lifecycle sustainability score associated with a product. For example, a status update can be received that describes or relates to an observed state of the product. Based upon this status update, an impact value associated with an impact the observed state of the product has upon one or more sustainability factors can be determined. This impact value can be applied to a current lifecycle sustainability score for the product. Calculating or determination of impact value can be based upon one or more sustainability factors which can relate to e.g. energy consumption, water usage, emissions, raw materials, waste, worker safety, labor policy, regulator mandates, or the like);
providing an intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator (108) comprising the intermediate product-specific life cycle parameter and the intermediate product specific sustainability parameter (Paragraph [0005]; [0021]; [0026]; [0035]; the architecture can receive a status update associated with a state, use, operation, or configuration of a manufactured product. Based upon the parameters of the state of the product included in the status update, the architecture can determine an impact value to a lifecycle sustainability score associated with a product. For example, a status update can be received that describes or relates to an observed state of the product. Based upon this status update, an impact value associated with an impact the observed state of the product has upon one or more sustainability factors can be determined. This impact value can be applied to a current lifecycle sustainability score for the product. Calculating or determination of impact value can be based upon one or more sustainability factors which can relate to e.g. energy consumption, water usage, emissions, raw materials, waste, worker safety, labor policy, regulator mandates, or the like);
and associating and transmitting the intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator (108) with the intermediate product (Paragraph [0005-0006]; [0021]; [0035]; the architecture can receive a status update associated with a state, use, operation, or configuration of a manufactured product. Based upon the parameters of the state of the product included in the status update, the architecture can determine an impact value to a lifecycle sustainability score associated with a product. For example, a status update can be received that describes or relates to an observed state of the product. Based upon this status update, an impact value associated with an impact the observed state of the product has upon one or more sustainability factors can be determined. This impact value can be applied to a current lifecycle sustainability score for the product. In one aspect the architecture can be configured as a dynamic product label. The architecture can receive an impact value associated with a state of a product that bears or displays the product label).
Walker discloses a system of determining a sustainability value for the manufacturing of a product based on material and processes used in the lifecycle of the product. However, Walker does not disclose processing at least the first input data (102, 202, 302) according to a life cycle assessment method to assess an environmental impact of the intermediate product and produce an intermediate product-specific life cycle parameter.
In the same field of endeavor of determining metadata of a product life cycle including sustainability Huizenga teaches processing at least the first input data (102, 202, 302) according to a life cycle assessment method to assess an environmental impact of the intermediate product and produce an intermediate product-specific life cycle parameter (Paragraph [0004]; [0020-0021]; [0024] embodiments of the present invention provide for management of metadata applied to life cycle inventory and life cycle assessment data. Suppliers of goods and/or services may provide life cycle inventory data which may be validated and may ultimately be used to generate a life cycle assessment score for a given product. For example, if a crop grower provides data about fuels used in the production of cotton, metadata associated with fuels may be stored with other information. And the retrieved data may be utilized for generating a life cycle assessment score for a product (e.g. a bale of cotton). Data provided by a given supplier may be passed through a distributed computing network to a life cycle inventory and assessment data hub where the data may be validated and/or audited, and where the data may be aggregated and scored in terms of its environmental and/or social impact with reference to the product for which the data is collected).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of determining a sustainability score for a product as disclosed by Walker (Walker [0021]) with the system of processing at least the first input data (102, 202, 302) according to a life cycle assessment method in order to produce an intermediate product-specific life cycle parameter as taught by Huizenga (Huizenga [0004]). With the motivation of helping to determine environmental impact of manufacturing a product (Huizenga [0001]).
Claim 2: Modified Walker discloses the method according as per claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the processing of at least the second input data (104, 204, 304) comprises transmitting at least the second input data (104, 204, 304) to an external verification body (106, 306) for processing (Paragraph [0039]; [0054] at least one sustainability score or the impact can be reformulated based upon one or more configuration parameters or sustainability factors provided by an authorized entity such as a private certification organization or standards board, a government agency, or even a consumer);
and receiving the intermediate product-specific sustainability parameter as a response from the external verification body (106, 306) (Paragraph [0005]; [0021]; [0026]; [0035]; the architecture can receive a status update associated with a state, use, operation, or configuration of a manufactured product. Based upon the parameters of the state of the product included in the status update, the architecture can determine an impact value to a lifecycle sustainability score associated with a product. For example, a status update can be received that describes or relates to an observed state of the product. Based upon this status update, an impact value associated with an impact the observed state of the product has upon one or more sustainability factors can be determined. This impact value can be applied to a current lifecycle sustainability score for the product. Calculating or determination of impact value can be based upon one or more sustainability factors which can relate to e.g. energy consumption, water usage, emissions, raw materials, waste, worker safety, labor policy, regulator mandates, or the like).
Claim 4: Modified Walker discloses the method according as per claim 1. Walker further discloses comprising associating and transmitting the intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator (108) with each intermediate product (Paragraph [0005]; [0021]; [0035]; the architecture can receive a status update associated with a state, use, operation, or configuration of a manufactured product. Based upon the parameters of the state of the product included in the status update, the architecture can determine an impact value to a lifecycle sustainability score associated with a product. For example, a status update can be received that describes or relates to an observed state of the product. Based upon this status update, an impact value associated with an impact the observed state of the product has upon one or more sustainability factors can be determined. This impact value can be applied to a current lifecycle sustainability score for the product).
Claim 7: Modified Walker discloses the method according as per claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein at least the second input data (104, 204, 304), optionally with the first input data (102, 202, 302), is processed by apportioning carbon sequestered in the forest to the intermediate product (Paragraph [0026] calculation of impact value can be based upon one or more sustainability factors which can relate to e.g. energy consumption, water usage, emissions, raw materials, carbon footprint, waste, or the like).
Claim 8: Modified Walker discloses the method according as per claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the first input data (102, 202, 302) and/or the second input data (104, 204, 304) are received via one of: wireless or wired communication link, internet, radio network access, application program interface (Paragraph [0058-0060]; illustrated aspects of the claimed subject matter may also be practiced in distributed computer environments where certain tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network).
Claim 9: Modified Walker discloses the method according as per claim 2. Walker further discloses wherein the data is transmitted to and/or received from the external verification body (106, 306) via one of: wireless or wired communication link, internet, radio network access, application program interface (Paragraph [0058-0060]; illustrated aspects of the claimed subject matter may also be practiced in distributed computer environments where certain tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network).
Claim 10: Modified Walker discloses the method according as per claim 1. Walker further discloses wherein the intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator (108) is expressed via equivalent(s), the equivalent(s) being identified and correlated with environmentally positive effect(s) (Paragraph [0005]; [0021]; [0026]; [0035]; the architecture can receive a status update associated with a state, use, operation, or configuration of a manufactured product. Based upon the parameters of the state of the product included in the status update, the architecture can determine an impact value to a lifecycle sustainability score associated with a product. For example, a status update can be received that describes or relates to an observed state of the product. Based upon this status update, an impact value associated with an impact the observed state of the product has upon one or more sustainability factors can be determined. This impact value can be applied to a current lifecycle sustainability score for the product. Calculating or determination of impact value can be based upon one or more sustainability factors which can relate to e.g. energy consumption, water usage, emissions, raw materials, waste, worker safety, labor policy, regulator mandates, or the like).
Claim 12: Modified Walker discloses a system (101, 201, 301) for determining a sustainability indicator for an intermediate product comprising means for performing the method according to claim 1 (Paragraph [0005]; [0021]; [0026]; [0035]; the architecture can receive a status update associated with a state, use, operation, or configuration of a manufactured product. Based upon the parameters of the state of the product included in the status update, the architecture can determine an impact value to a lifecycle sustainability score associated with a product. For example, a status update can be received that describes or relates to an observed state of the product. Based upon this status update, an impact value associated with an impact the observed state of the product has upon one or more sustainability factors can be determined. This impact value can be applied to a current lifecycle sustainability score for the product. Calculating or determination of impact value can be based upon one or more sustainability factors which can relate to e.g. energy consumption, water usage, emissions, raw materials, waste, worker safety, labor policy, regulator mandates, or the like).
Claim 17: Modified Walker discloses a service for determining a sustainability indicator of an intermediate product, wherein the service utilizes the method according to claim 1, and the service comprises associating a unique code with the intermediate product (Paragraph [0005]; [0021]; [0026]; [0035]; the architecture can receive a status update associated with a state, use, operation, or configuration of a manufactured product. Based upon the parameters of the state of the product included in the status update, the architecture can determine an impact value to a lifecycle sustainability score associated with a product. For example, a status update can be received that describes or relates to an observed state of the product. Based upon this status update, an impact value associated with an impact the observed state of the product has upon one or more sustainability factors can be determined. This impact value can be applied to a current lifecycle sustainability score for the product. Calculating or determination of impact value can be based upon one or more sustainability factors which can relate to e.g. energy consumption, water usage, emissions, raw materials, waste, worker safety, labor policy, regulator mandates, or the like. Based upon the data input by the sustainability score update data store can maintain state history for every individual product or other unique product ID).

Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2010/0274629) in view of Huizenga (US 2013/0066867) further in view of Gauchat (US 2016/0104086).
Claim 3: Modified Walker discloses the method as per claim 1. However, Walker does not disclose the life cycle assessment method being performed in accordance to ISO 14040/44 and PAS2050 standards.
	In the same field of endeavor of determining sustainability of products Gauchat teaches the life cycle assessment method being performed in accordance to ISO 14040/44 and PAS2050 standards (Paragraph [0024] many product manufacturers publish information on the various products they sell. Product information that is very thorough and includes substantial environmental impact information according to one or more ISO product standards, such as ISO 14040, 14044, 14025 and other relevant product standards).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of determining a sustainability score for a product as disclosed by modified Walker (Walker [0021]) with the system of the life cycle assessment method being performed in accordance to ISO 14040/44 and PAS2050 standards as taught by Gauchat (Gauchat [0024]). With the motivation of helping to determine environmental impact of manufacturing a product (Huizenga [0007]).

Therefore, claims 1-4 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.


Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed December 18, 2024, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 7-17 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 11, 13, and 15-16: The applicant argues that the claims are directed to a practical application as they recite a method for determining a sustainability indicator for a product by a system, the method comprising processing at least the first input data according to a life cycle assessment method in order to product an intermediate product-specific life cycle parameter and receiving a second input data including external information on raw material used for the intermediate product, providing an intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator comprising the intermediate product-specific life cycle parameter and the intermediate product specific sustainability parameter and associating the intermediate product-specific sustainability indicator for the intermediate product which is an improvement in providing a user with tangible information regarding the environmental impact of a particular intermediate product. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims recite a method of receiving input data including internal and external information, processing the first and second input data to produce an intermediate product-specific life cycle parameter and an intermediate product-specific sustainability parameter. Merely receiving and analyzing information to generate an output or a score such as a life cycle parameter and a sustainability parameter is an abstract idea. As the method can be practically performed in the human mind or by using simple tools such as pen and paper. A person such as an environmental impact assessor would be capable of receiving information pertaining to the internal and external information of a product such as the raw-materials being used and the geographic origin of the materials and determine, at each stage of production, an arbitrary metric pertaining to the sustainability and life cycle of the product. The recited steps are similar to concepts the courts have identified as reciting mental processes such as observations, evaluations, judgement, and opinions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The additional elements of a system comprising generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea are directed to merely “apply it.” As the claims do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field but merely recite using generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of receiving input information and determining a parameter based on the inputting information. Therefore, the additional elements are not directed to a practical application as they do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the current 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that claims 3-4, 7-10, 12, 14 and 17 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1, 11, 13, and 15-16 and therefore are rejected under the same rejection.

Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed December 18, 2024, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2010/0274629) in view of Huizenga (US 2013/0066867) are not persuasive as the claims were amended which required further search and consideration.
Claims 1, 11, 13, and 15-16: Applicant argues that the current prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations of wherein the second input data comprises information on at least one of: geographic origin, type, manufacturing process phase of raw material and processing at least the first input data according to a life cycle assessment method in order to produce an intermediate product specific life cycle parameter. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as Walker discloses a system of determining a sustainability score regarding the manufacturing of a product and dynamically generating the sustainability score during various phases of production (Walker [0007]). Walker further discloses determining the current lifecycle sustainability score for a product by taking a series of different sustainability factors. The sustainability factors include both internal factors such as raw materials being used and energy consumption for manufacturing the product as well as external factors such as the mining, drilling, and refining required for the raw materials (Walker [0029]). Therefore, the examiner finds that Walker discloses a system of determining a sustainability score based on various internal and external factors. 
Representative further argues that it would not be obvious to combine Walker and Huizenga. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as Walker discloses a system of tracking the production lifecycle of a product and determining a sustainability score for the product based on various factors at each stage of the product lifecycle. While Huizenga teaches a system of managing a lifecycle of a product and a generating lifecycle data assessment score based on factors such as materials used in the manufacturing of the product, energy used, and the like (Huizenga [0019]). Huizenga further teaches aggregating the data in scored terms to generate environmental impact of manufacturing the product (Huizenga [0024]). Therefore, both pieces of prior art are in the same field of endeavor of tracking the manufacturing lifecycle of a product and determining a score based on various factors such as raw materials used in manufacturing and the processes and transportation required. 
The Examiner finds that the combination of Walker and Huizenga teach the newly amended claim limitations.
Therefore, claims 1, 11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under U.S.C. 103.
Claims 3-4, 7-10, 12, 14 and 17 were argued as being allowable only as being dependent on claims 1, 11, 13, and 15-16. Therefore, they are also rejected under U.S.C. 103.


Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Jahns (US 2019/0331655) Product sustainability scorecard.
Sousa (US 2008/0319812) Sustainable design decision support system.
Twigge-Molecey (US 2003/0110065) Method for enhancing sustainability.
Risz (US 2012/0323619) Environmental impact assessment system and method.
	

Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902.  The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782.  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.





/COREY RUSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3629


Retrieved from "https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Patent_Application_17783713_-_Method_a_system_a_computer_program_product_and_a_-_Rejection&oldid=513143"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.