DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 the Application
2. Claims 1-23 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. Examiner Note: Please note Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on 05/04/2023, wherein Claims 1-23 are currently pending in the present application and were amended by an Article 19 Amendment filed with the International Bureau on March 31, 2022. Claims 1 and 18 are written in independent form. Examiner has considered these amended claims and entered “ok to enter” on the record for the case file with Examiner’s initials and date.
Priority
3. The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Foreign Priority Application GB2017448.8 filed on 11/04/2020 and 371 of PCT/GB2021/052832 filed on 11/02/2021. The earliest effective filing date examined for this application is therefore 11/04/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
IDS Statement
4. The 1 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/04/2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Specification Objections
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(A). Examiner notes that the current title of the specification is: “Method and System for Automatically Providing Sustaintability Score for Products.” The word “Sustaintability” is spelled incorrectly as there is no “t” after the “n” and should be spelled as “Sustainability”. Please amend the title of the Specification to reflect the following: “Method and System for Automatically Providing [[ Sustainability Score for Products.” See MPEP § 606.01. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1, 7-11 and 13-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(A). Please note that the amended claim sheet according to Article 19 filed on 05/04/2023 also incorporated the Drawings within the same sheet. Please provide a clean claim sheet with the Drawings provided on a separate sheet. See 37 CFR 1.52 (b) (3) and 1.75 (h). “According to MPEP § 608.01(m), the claims in a patent application must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page.” Examiner notes that the amended claim set filed on 05/04/2023 incorporates both amended Claims 1-23 on pages 38-44 (equivalent to Pages 1-7 in pdf format) and then starts off with the Pages 8-17 with the Drawings and then Pages 18-19 showing the International Search Report.
(B). The preamble of Independent Claim 1 recites the following limitation: “A method for automatically providing an impact index for a product, the method comprising the steps of:”.
There is a minor claim informality shown here, see below for the corrections.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the preamble of Independent Claim 1 to recite the following limitation: “A method for automatically providing an impact index for a product, the method comprising [[ steps of:”.
(C). Claim 7 recites the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the predetermined cut-off of the attribute is selected from a group comprising a geo-graphical region, a local community, a region of manufacture, a document related to the product, and a threshold value influencing the plurality of impact dimensions and variables.” There is a minor claim informality shown here when referring back to the limitations of Independent Claim 1, see below for the corrections.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 7 to recite the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the predetermined cut-off of the corresponding attribute is selected from a group comprising a geo-graphical region, a local community, a region of manufacture, a document related to the product, and a threshold value influencing the plurality of impact dimensions and variables.” It is unclear whether “the attribute” here refers back to “the corresponding attribute” shown in Claim 6.
(D). Claim 8 recites the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of receiving at least one input data from a user through an input/output (I/O) interface, wherein the input data comprises an information of at least one product selected by the user.” There is a minor claim informality shown here when referring back to the limitations of Independent Claim 1, see below for the corrections.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 8 to recite the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of receiving at least one input data from a user through an input/output (I/O) interface, wherein the input data comprises [[ information of the at least one product selected by the user.”
(E). Claim 9 recites the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein selecting at least one product from a plurality of products provided in a predefined list comprises: receiving at least one input data from a user through an input/output (I/O) interface; detecting at least one product from the predefined list based on the input data; and identifying the product using an image processing method by a camera and at least one processor of a system.” There is a plurality of minor claim informalities shown here.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 9 to recite the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein selecting the at least one product from [[ the plurality of products provided in [[ the predefined list comprises: receiving at least one input data from a user through an input/output (I/O) interface; detecting the at least one product from the predefined list based on the input data; and identifying the at least one product using an image processing method by a camera and at least one processor of a system.”
(F). Claim 10 recites the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of iteratively selecting at least one set of attributes from the plurality of attributes for the at least one product selected.” There is a plurality of minor claim informalities shown here.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 10 to recite the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of iteratively selecting the at least one set of attributes from the plurality of identified attributes for the at least one product selected.”
(G). Claim 11 recites the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the at least one set of attributes are iteratively selected till the plurality of variables are mapped with at least one set of attributes for all the plurality of products.” There is a plurality of minor claim informalities shown here.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 11 to recite the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the at least one set of attributes are iteratively selected till the plurality of variables are mapped with the at least one set of attributes for all the plurality of products.”
(H). Claim 13 recites the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables comprises the step of: determining a relationship value of each of the plurality of variables based on a relationship between the plurality of attributes, the plurality of variables and the plurality of impact dimensions; determining a first weightage for each attribute of the at least one set of attributes selected based on strength and influence of each attribute with other attributes; and determining a second weightage for each variable of the plurality of variables using the first weightage for each attribute and the relationship value.” There is a plurality of claim informalities shown here.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 13 to recite the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining [[ the plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables comprises the [[ steps of: determining a relationship value of each of the plurality of variables based on a relationship between the plurality of attributes, the plurality of variables and the plurality of impact dimensions; determining a first weightage for each attribute of the at least one set of attributes selected based on strength and influence of each attribute with other attributes; and determining a second weightage for each variable of the plurality of variables using the first weightage for each attribute and the relationship value.”
(I). Claim 14 recites the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein automatically determining an impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions comprises the step of: determining an intermediate product score for each of the plurality of impact dimensions by summing up the plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables for each of the plurality of impact dimensions; and determining the impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions by: normalizing the intermediate product score for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the intermediate product score of an ideal product, wherein the ideal product relates to a same category of at least one product selected.” There is a plurality of claim informalities shown here.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 14 to recite the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein automatically determining [[ the impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions comprises the [[ steps of: determining an intermediate product score for each of the plurality of impact dimensions by summing up the plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables for each of the plurality of impact dimensions; and determining the impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions by: normalizing the intermediate product score for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the intermediate product score of an ideal product, wherein the ideal product relates to a same category of at least one product selected.”
(J). Claim 15 recites the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of weightings of the at least one set of attributes comprises the steps of: identifying and defining each attribute of at least one set of attributes; determining a contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another, wherein the contextual relationship comprises a qualitative and quantitative relationships between each of the attribute with another attribute; determining a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) through the contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another; converting the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix into an initial Reachability Matrix (RM); and determining a drive-dependence power or weightage of each attribute dependent on the remaining attributes of the at least one set of attributes, wherein the drive-dependence power or weightage is determined using each driving attribute, dependent attributes, number of dependent attributes, and a relationship between each driving attribute and each dependent attribute.” There is a plurality of claim informalities shown here when referring back to the limitations shown in Independent Claim 1, see below for the corrections.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 15 to recite the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of [[ weightages of the at least one set of attributes comprises the steps of: identifying and defining each attribute of the at least one set of attributes; determining a contextual relationship between [ each attribute with another attribute, wherein the contextual relationship comprises a qualitative and quantitative relationships between each of the attribute with another attribute; determining a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) through the contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another; converting the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix into an initial Reachability Matrix (RM); and determining a drive-dependence power or weightage of each attribute dependent on the remaining attributes of the at least one set of attributes, wherein the drive-dependence power or weightage is determined using each driving attribute, dependent attributes, number of dependent attributes, and a relationship between each of the driving attribute and each dependent [[ attributes.”
(K). Claim 16 recites the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining [[the plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables and the at least one set of attributes comprises the steps of: determining at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution, of each attribute in comparison to the other attributes in the plurality of attributes; determining the at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution, of each variable within each impact dimension; and determining the at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution, of each variable towards each attribute.” There is a plurality of claim informalities shown here when referring back to the limitations shown in Independent Claim 1, see above for the corrections.
(L). Claim 17 recites the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the steps of: determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables and the plurality of attributes, based on a priority of assigned to each of the plurality of impact dimensions.” There is a plurality of claim informalities shown here when referring back to the limitations shown in Independent Claim 1, see below for the corrections.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Dependent Claim 17 to recite the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the [[ step of: determining [[ the plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables and the plurality of attributes, based on a priority of assigned to each of the plurality of impact dimensions.”
(M). Claim 18 recites the following limitation: “a memory unit (206) configured to communicate with the at least one processor [[ wherein the at least one processor is configured to:”. There is a minor claim informality shown here, see below for the corrections.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Claim 18 to recite the following limitation: “a memory unit (206) configured to communicate with the at least one processor [[ , wherein the at least one processor is configured to:”.
(N). Claim 18 recites the following limitation: “determine a plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables mapped, and at least one set of attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions”. There is a minor claim informality shown here.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend Claim 18 to recite the following limitation: “determine a plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables mapped, and the at least one set of attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 6-7, 15-16 and 18-23 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.
(A). Claim 6 recites the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one set of attributes from the plurality of attributes is selected based on a predetermined cut-off of the corresponding attribute for the at least one product selected.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim with respect to “the corresponding attribute” when referring back to Independent Claim 1.
For the purpose of examination, please amend Dependent Claim 6 to recite the following limitation: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one set of attributes from the plurality of attributes is selected based on a predetermined cut-off of [[ a corresponding attribute for the at least one product selected.” Additionally, Dependent Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112 (b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Dependent Claim 6 and failing to remedy them.
(B). Claim 15 recites the following limitations: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of weightings of the at least one set of attributes comprises the steps of: identifying and defining each attribute of at least one set of attributes; determining a contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another, wherein the contextual relationship comprises a qualitative and quantitative relationships between each of the attribute with another attribute; determining a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) through the contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another; converting the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix into an initial Reachability Matrix (RM); and determining a drive-dependence power or weightage of each attribute dependent on the remaining attributes of the at least one set of attributes, wherein the drive-dependence power or weightage is determined using each driving attribute, dependent attributes, number of dependent attributes, and a relationship between each driving attribute and each dependent attribute.” Examiner notes that the 5th limitation in Dependent Claim 15 contains the phrase “the remaining attributes” which appears to lack antecedent basis when referring back to Independent Claim 1. It is vague and indefinite as to what “remaining attributes” are being referred to here. Clarification is requested.
For the purpose of examination, please amend Dependent Claim 15 to recite the following limitations:
“The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of weightings of the at least one set of attributes comprises the steps of: identifying and defining each attribute of at least one set of attributes; determining a contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another, wherein the contextual relationship comprises a qualitative and quantitative relationships between each of the attribute with another attribute; determining a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) through the contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another; converting the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix into an initial Reachability Matrix (RM); and determining a drive-dependence power or weightage of each attribute dependent on [[remaining attributes of the at least one set of attributes, wherein the drive-dependence power or weightage is determined using each driving attribute, dependent attributes, number of dependent attributes, and a relationship between each driving attribute and each dependent attribute.”
(C). Claim 16 recites the following limitation: “determining at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution, of each attribute in comparison to the other attributes in the plurality of attributes.” There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis with respect to the phrase “the other attributes” as this wasn’t previously referred to or mentioning in Independent Claim 1.
For the purpose of examination, please amend Claim 16 to recite the following limitation: “determining at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution, of each attribute in comparison to [[ other attributes in the plurality of attributes.”
(D). Claim 18 recites the following limitation: “map the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables related to each of the plurality of impact dimensions, wherein the plurality of variables comprise a plurality of sustainability factors associated with the plurality of impact dimensions, each variable is mapped with one or more relevant attributes of the selected product.” There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis with respect to the phrase “each of the plurality of impact dimensions” as this wasn’t previously referred to or mentioning in Independent Claim 18.
For the purpose of examination, please amend Independent Claim 18 to recite the following limitation: “map the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables related to each of [[ a plurality of impact dimensions, wherein the plurality of variables comprise a plurality of sustainability factors associated with the plurality of impact dimensions, each variable is mapped with one or more relevant attributes of the selected product.”
Additionally, Dependent Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112 (b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Independent Claim 18 and failing to remedy them.
(E). Dependent Claim 23 recites the following limitation: “wherein the benefit index is a relative index providing a comparison of the impact index of the at least one product against the impact index of a baseline product, for each of the plurality of impact dimensions.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim with respect to “the benefit index” when referring back to Independent Claim 18. For the purpose of examination, please amend Dependent Claim 23 to recite the following limitation: “wherein [[ a benefit index is a relative index providing a comparison of the impact index of the at least one product against the impact index of a baseline product, for each of the plurality of impact dimensions.”
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-23 are each focused to a statutory category namely, a “method” or a “process” (Claims 1-17) and a “system” or an “apparatus” (Claims 18-23).
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claims 1 and 18 recites limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except where strikethrough):
“” (see Independent Claim 18);
“” (see Independent Claim 18);
“” (see Independent Claim 18);
“” (see Independent Claim 18);
“selecting at least one product from a plurality of products provided in a predefined list” (see Independent Claims 1 and 18);
“identify a plurality of attributes related to a plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected” (see Independent Claim 18);
“identifying a plurality of attributes related to a plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected, wherein the plurality of impact dimensions comprise Environmental impacts, Social impacts, Health impacts, and Economic impacts” (see Independent Claim 1);
“select at least one set of attributes from the plurality of identified attributes for the at least one product selected” (see Independent Claim 18);
“selecting at least one set of attributes from the plurality of identified attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected” (see Independent Claim 1);
“mapping the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables related to each of the plurality of impact dimensions, wherein the plurality of variables comprise a plurality of sustainability factors associated with the plurality of impact dimensions, each variable is mapped with one or more relevant attributes of the selected product” (see Independent Claims 1 and 18);
“determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables and the at least one set of attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions” (see Independent Claims 1 and 18);
“ determining an impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the plurality of weightages” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ determine an impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables mapped, wherein the plurality of impact dimensions comprise Environmental impacts, Social impacts, Health impacts, and Economic impacts” (see Independent Claim 18).
Here, for step 2a prong 1, for Independent Claims 1 and 18, recite an abstract idea directed to the automated, multi-dimensional calculation of a product's sustainability impact index. These steps outline a process of selecting, identifying, mapping, and weighing data to compute an index. This is analogous to a human analyst gathering information and calculating a sustainability score, which is “Mental Processes”. The steps involving "selecting products," "identifying attributes," and "mapping variables" (environmental, social, health, economic) are essentially financial, business, or administrative tasks via “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. "Mathematical Concepts": Determining weightages and computing an index based on those weightages is fundamentally mathematical calculations.
Therefore, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid, in order to help perform these mental steps does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude these claims from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
Additionally, or alternatively, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to (3) mathematical calculations and additionally or alternatively as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (4) managing personal behavior (including teachings or following rules or instructions).
That is, other than reciting the additional elements of (e.g., “a plurality of hardware modules” & “at least one processor (202)” & “an input/output (I/O) interface (204)” & “a memory unit (206)”), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) managing personal behavior (including teachings or following rules or instructions) and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (2) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (3) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Moreover, the mere recitation of computer components such as (e.g., “a plurality of hardware modules” & “at least one processor (202)” & “an input/output (I/O) interface (204)” & “a memory unit (206)”) does not take the claims out of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” or “Mental Processes” Groupings.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-23 recite an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claims 1 and 18 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a plurality of hardware modules” & “at least one processor (202)” & “an input/output (I/O) interface (204)” & “a memory unit (206)”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). The steps "identifying," "selecting," "mapping," and "determining weightages" are generic, functional steps that describe, at a high level, how to process data. They do not define a specific, technological improvement in the computer's operation. The "mapping" of attributes to variables and calculating an "impact index" are mathematical manipulations of information. The transformation is cognitive, not technical. The phrase "automatically determining" indicates the use of computer functions—inputting, storing, and calculating—which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Independent Claims 1 and 18 describe the result (an impact index) rather than a specific technological solution for achieving it. Therefore, in addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-23 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claims 1 and 18 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a plurality of hardware modules” & “at least one processor (202)” & “an input/output (I/O) interface (204)” & “a memory unit (206)”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05 (h) and See MPEP § 2106.05 (f). Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a computer executing the instructions to implement the invention (see at least Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0038-0039]: “The at least one processor (202) is implemented as one or more microprocessors, microcomputers, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, central processing units, state machines, logic circuitries, and/or any devices that manipulate signals based on operational instructions. Among other capabilities, at least one processor (202) is configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in the memory (206). The system is configured implement the various steps involved in the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product in accordance with the previous embodiment of the present disclosure.” “The memory unit (206) comprises any computer-readable medium known in the art including, for example, volatile memory, such as static random-access memory (SRAM) and dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), and/or non-volatile memory, such as read only memory (ROM), erasable programmable ROM, flash memories, hard disks, optical disks, and magnetic tapes.”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2-17 and 19-23 recite additional elements directed to: (e.g., “input/output (I/O) interface”, “a matrix generation module” (212)”, “a data gathering module (214)”, “an evaluation and weightage module (216)”, “an environment sustainability module (218)”, “a social sustainability module(220)”, “a health sustainability module (222)”, “a monetary sustainability module (224)”, “a mapping module (226)”, “a decision module (228)”, “a database (210)”, etc…), and when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) with the limitations recite the same abstract idea(s) as shown in Independent Claims 1 and 18 along with further steps/details that could be performed as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to (3) mathematical calculations and additionally or alternatively as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (4) managing personal behavior (including teachings or following rules or instructions).
Dependent Claims 2-7, 10-17 and 21-23 further narrow the abstract ideas, and are therefore still ineligible for the reasons previously provided in Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B for Independent Claims 1 and 18. Dependent Claims 8-9 and 19-20: With respect to reliance on the additional elements of (e.g., “input/output (I/O) interface” (see Dependent Claims 8-9) & “image processing” (see Dependent Claim 9) & “a camera” (see Dependent Claim 9) & “at least one processor of a system” (see Dependent Claim 9) & “a matrix generation module” (212)” (see Dependent Claim 19), “a data gathering module (214)” (see Dependent Claim 19), “an evaluation and weightage module (216)” (see Dependent Claim 19), “an environment sustainability module (218)” (see Dependent Claim 19), “a social sustainability module(220)” (see Dependent Claim 19), “a health sustainability module (222)” (see Dependent Claim 19), “a monetary sustainability module (224)” (see Dependent Claim 19), “a mapping module (226)” (see Dependent Claim 19), “a decision module (228)” (see Dependent Claim 19) & “a database (210)” (see Dependent Claim 20)), as shown in Dependent Claims 8-9 and 19-20 when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) the claims as a whole are limited to a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to providing a sustainability score for products in the sustainability impacts of building or construction environments (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) “apply” the recited judicial exceptions by providing the results to the user on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f)). The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-23 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2014/0040160 A1) hereinafter Comito, in view of US PG Pub (US 2013/0238379 A1) hereinafter Prieto, in further view of US PG Pub (US 2018/0300793 A1) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Comito method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the following limitations:
- selecting at least one product from a plurality of products provided in a predefined list (see at least Comito: ¶ [0051-0052] & ¶ [0111]. Comito notes that a match between some or all of the sub-classification codes indicates whether the item is comparable to product 180. Having at least a predefined number of matching sub-classification codes of the total number of sub-classification codes determines whether a product is comparable to product 180. A product comparable to product 180 is determined by system 100 referencing a list stored in database 128 of comparable products for product 180. The user is prompted to enter a product identifier 190 for an additional or comparable product. See also Comito at ¶ [0051-0052]: “The user enters “Phillips model 423517” for the same product. The user enters the information by typing it into a data entry field, by speaking it into a microphone on network-enabled device 150, by scanning or photographing the description, or by selecting text in a document, webpage, or other computer file. Product identifying information 192 is an image of product packaging or product 180. For example, a consumer shopping online may select an image of product 180 as viewed on a website or may upload the user's own image of product 180 using network-enabled device 150. An image may be compared with data or images in database 128 to identify product 180.”).
Comito method for automatically providing an impact index for a product does not explicitly disclose, but Prieto in the analogous art for automatically providing an impact index for a product does disclose the following:
- identifying a plurality of attributes (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0051-0052]. Prieto notes that each of attribute sets 251-257 includes one or more attributes that include an attribute identifier (e.g., a name, GUID, UUID, etc.) and a corresponding value. First, each of attributes 358 includes a name or identifier (e.g., label, GUID, etc.) corresponding to feature within attribute set 351.) related to a plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0042] & ¶ [0053-0057]. Prieto notes that the “material” attribute could include a modeled expected rate at which concrete is consumed during construction at the project site where a corresponding attribute value might include cubic yards of concrete used-to-date calculated from the modeled expected rate. Further, the attribute values could also include an actual value reflecting the real-world consumed amount of concrete. FIG. 4 provides an overview of generating a social bottom line impact, or other bottom line impacts, as a function of the attributes values across the multiple dimensions of attributes set. The social bottom line impact can be generated by modeling the attribute values for the construction project according project model 440.), wherein the plurality of impact dimensions comprise Environmental impacts, Social impacts, Health impacts and Economic impacts (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0012] & ¶ [0062] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto notes that the modeling engine preferably is further configured to generate one or more bottom line impacts, a social bottom line impact for example, as a function of project-specific attribute values across the multiple dimensions of attributes sets. Example bottom line impacts could include financial impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts, or other types of impacts. Prieto at Fig. 4 shows the multiple impact dimensions and the product selected via the assembly object. See also Prieto at ¶ [0062]: One should appreciate that black swan events can also be associated with other bottom-line impacts beyond social bottom line impacts. Thus, the black swan events could be associated with financial bottom-line impacts, environmental bottom line impacts, or other impacts.)
- selecting at least one set of attributes from the plurality of identified attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0042-0043] & ¶ [0053-0056] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto notes that a design engineer, possibly at output device 180, can select assembly objects 150 from assembly database 125 and connect the assembly objects 150 together using logical connectors. See also Prieto at ¶ [0042]: Assembly objects 150 could include physical devices; pumps, pipes, values, control units, cable trays, HVAC units, or other devices. Such assembly objects can be obtained from assembly database 125 and instantiated according to the specific requirements for modeling construction project 110. Assembly objects 150 can cover a broad spectrum of assemblies including mechanical assemblies, module assemblies (e.g., modular processing units, HVAC systems, etc.), know-how, assembled data sets, training materials or documents, maintenance documentation, forms or checklists, or other types of assemblies that can be leveraged over the life cycle of construction project 110. See also Prieto at ¶ [0053]: The “material” attribute could include a modeled expected rate at which concrete is consumed during construction at the project site where a corresponding attribute value might include cubic yards of concrete used-to-date calculated from the modeled expected rate. Further, the attribute values could also include an actual value reflecting the real-world consumed amount of concrete. See also Prieto at ¶ [0056]: Consider the example of the “materials” attributes, which has attributes values associated with a “metal” metric during a construction phase, or a “dust” metric related to an EOL demolition of the project site. See also Prieto at ¶ [0012]: “The modeling engine preferably is further configured to generate one or more bottom line impacts, a social bottom line impact for example, as a function of project-specific attribute values across the multiple dimensions of attributes sets. Example bottom line impacts could include financial impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts, or other types of impacts.”);
- mapping the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables related to each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0030-0036] & ¶ [0046-0050] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto teaches that establish map 160 according to project module 140 where map 160 maps attribute values of attributes sets of assembly objects 150 to at least a social bottom line. Map 160 euphemistically represents a module capable of operating on project model 140 to simulate or model construction project 110 to arrive at a social bottom line. For example, map 160 could simply be project model 140 where the attributes values within the attributes sets of assembly objects 150 could be indicative of an impact on one or more facets of a social bottom line (e.g., good will, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, job creation, family or local economic impacts, community involvement or development, cultural impact, religious implications, etc.). Map 160 could then be a sum of the values for each facet across each dimension of assembly objects. Another example of map 160 could include a simulation where map 160 applies time-based rules across project model 140. See also Prieto at ¶ [0012]: Example bottom line impacts could include financial impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts, or other types of impacts. See also Prieto at ¶ [0030]: “Expanded set of component attributes can relate to second (environmental) and third (social) bottom lines such as energy, water, greenhouse gases, waste, labor, various social metrics, other.” See also Prieto at ¶ [0050]: Seven dimensions are presented within assembly object 250, one should appreciate that the attribute sets could include at least four dimensions of attributes sets, five dimensions of attributes, six dimensions of attributes, seven dimensions of attributes, or more dimensions of attribute sets. See also Prieto at Fig. 4 noting the “mapping the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables” illustrated at map 460 shown at Fig. 4 of Prieto.), wherein the plurality of variables comprise a plurality of sustainability factors associated with the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0046] & ¶ [0061-0062]. Prieto teaches that the social bottom line impact can include projected social impact 495 that represents a projection of the social bottom line impact from an up-to-date actual social impact 493 where the projection is generated via project model 440 based on the real-world project data and actual social impact 493 applied to product model 440. Thus, projected social impact 495 could include a real-time updated or course corrected representation of the impact. See also Prieto at ¶ [0008]: Prieto teaches indicating that a triple bottom line for measuring success of a project can include taking into account environmental, financial, and social performance.), each variable is mapped with one or more relevant attributes of the selected product (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0026-0030] & ¶ [0053-0056] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto teaches that the expanded set of component attributes can relate to second (environmental) and third (social) bottom lines such as energy, water, greenhouse gases, waste, labor, various social metrics, other. Also that “Project execution model facilitates process status tracking or predictive linkages that support re-sequencing of construction for late delivery of equipment, materials and importantly the means of construction”. See also Prieto at ¶ [0053-0054]: For example, the “material” attribute could include a modeled expected rate at which concrete is consumed during construction at the project site where a corresponding attribute value might include cubic yards of concrete used-to-date calculated from the modeled expected rate. Further, the attribute values could also include an actual value reflecting the real-world consumed amount of concrete. Attributes 358 preferably include properties that directly (i.e., a direct contribution to the bottom-line impact) or indirectly (i.e., used to calculate the bottom-line impact with a project model) relate to a bottom-line impact. In the example show, some of attributes 358 comprises social bottom line properties. See also Prieto at ¶ [0055-0056]: Consider the example of the “materials” attributes, which has attributes values associated with a “metal” metric during a construction phase, or a “dust” metric related to an EOL demolition of the project site. Such metrics lack direct impact on a social bottom line. However, the project model can leverage such information to derive a social bottom line to one or more modeled systems. Consider social bottom line impacts that reflect community involvement or development. The metal metrics or dust/debris removal metric can be used to recommend development of local industries, which increase the community involvement or development in general, not just with the project. Thus, the project model can be considered to include modules configured to or programmed to derive social bottom line impacts from the attribute values across the life cycle of the construction project.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: identifying a plurality of attributes related to a plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected, wherein the plurality of impact dimensions comprise Environmental impacts, Social impacts, Health impacts, and Economic impacts & selecting at least one set of attributes from the plurality of identified attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected & mapping the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables related to each of the plurality of impact dimensions, wherein the plurality of variables comprise a plurality of sustainability factors associated with the plurality of impact dimensions, each variable is mapped with one or more relevant attributes of the selected product, and in view of Prieto, in order to provide advantageous technical effects including generating signals that configure an output device to present one or more bottom line impacts for a modeled facility (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0019]). Moreover, map 160 could simply be project model 140 where the attributes values within the attributes sets of assembly objects 150 could be indicative of an impact on one or more facets of a social bottom line (e.g., good will, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, job creation, family or local economic impacts, community involvement or development, cultural impact, religious implications, etc.). Map 160 could then be a sum of the values for each facet across each dimension of assembly object (see at least Prieto at ¶ [0046]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Prieto, the results of the combination were predictable.
Comito / Prieto method for automatically providing an impact index for a product does not explicitly disclose, but Chen in the analogous art for automatically providing an impact index for a product does disclose the following:
- determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables (see at least Chen: ¶ [0071-0074] & ¶ [0168-0173]. Chen teaches that the data annotation engine functions as an interface to guide the annotation of sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts. A corpus of sustainability standards can be collected, with different sustainability standards providing information about impacts and practices in different product categories. Each practice may be mapped on an impact, an impact category, a stage and a sub-stage with benefit giving an explanation to the logic. The data annotation engine functions to map practices/specifications onto an impact area and a work step using the annotation framework/methodology. See also Chen at ¶ [0168]: teaches that various impact areas are assigned weights based on their importance for a particular product category. For example, a first product category may have a significant impact on water, resulting in a higher weight for that impact area for the first product category, whereas a second product category may have an impact on water, but to a much lesser degree, resulting in a lower weight for the “water” impact area for the second product category. In various embodiments, impact areas can be assigned with weights indicative of their importance to a particular product category, and product benefit efficiency scores can be weighted based on impact area weights. See also Chen: ¶ [0169]: Impact areas for a product category can be grouped into one of a plurality of “weight categories.” Which weight category a particular impact area should be assigned to can be determined by first calculating a weight value for each impact area for the product category. See also Chen at Fig. 10 noting that “impact areas are mapped onto UN Sustainable Development Goals” and Chen at ¶ [0071-0074] such as “sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts.”.) and the at least one set of attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Chen: Fig. 4 & Fig. 14 & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0212]. Chen notes that It's possible to hit sustainability targets, but what it actually means in terms of procurement breakdowns and cost differentials is discerned for the user. This is enabled by calculating average deltas in pricing information of product attributes and impact offsets. See also Chen at ¶ [0041]: The system described herein may provide analytics and footprint tracking platform to improve reporting and long-term sustainability planning, and organization (e.g., government agencies) may be able to draw meaning from existing meta-data sources (E.g., corporate metadata sources) with machine learning to cross-reference highest impact areas of millions of goods and services based on production-level specifications, attributes, and certifications. See also Chen at Fig. 4 noting “a plurality of impact dimensions or impact areas in a 2 x 2 matrix or table as compared to the coffee work steps.”).
- automatically determining an impact index of the at least one product (see at least Chen: ¶ [0004-0005] & ¶ [0059]. Chen teaches that the augmented sustainability management and analytics system 102 utilizes machine learning to infer product sustainability from phylogenetic methods to fill in unknown Product Category Rules, Liability Impact areas and also Environmental Product Declarations and Benefit Offset Opportunities with 3 relationship trees using phylogenetic methodology. A product benefit efficiency scores may be calculated for each product of the plurality of products based on the subset of impact areas and the subset of offsets associated with each product. One or more product recommendations may be determined for a user based on the product benefit efficiency scores.) for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the plurality of weightages (see at least Chen: ¶ [0078-0079] & ¶ [0086-0087] & ¶ [0168-0173]. Chen notes that the annotation structure of the data allows for a deep search tool, which indexes across ecolabels, impacts, stages, product categories and practices. See also Chen at ¶ [abstract]: A product benefit efficiency score may be calculated for each product of the plurality of products based on the subset of impact areas and the subset of offsets associated with each product. One or more product recommendations may be determined for a user based on the product benefit efficiency scores. See also Chen at ¶ [0086-0087]: Here i,j are the practice indexes, S is the total number of worksteps in the annotation matrix (e.g., in the matrices from the previous section, there are six “product stages,” so S=6), L is the number of Impacts in the annotation matrix (e.g., using the example impact areas discussed above, L=29) and k is the index over the grid.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables and the at least one set of attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions & automatically determining an impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the plurality of weightages, and in further view of Chen, whereby substituting construction materials with coffee, toner, or paper can be structured by arguing it is a simple substitution of materials to achieve known sustainability goals (e.g., lower carbon footprint, circular economy). Examiner notes that the “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. Coffee grounds, used toner, or recycled paper are known, sustainable materials often used in filler or composite applications. By substituting these materials for traditional, non-sustainable components (like plastic fillers or aggregates) produces predictable improvements in sustainability metrics (e.g., reduced CO2 footprint, increased recycled content). Moreover, the motivation to combine is based on industry trends, environmental regulations, or market pressure for greener, bio-based building materials as the motivation for the substitution in order to achieve a sustainability score or sustainability index of a product selected when considering each of the plurality of impact dimensions or impact areas. The substitution does not produce a "new" or "unexpected" result, as the system merely processes the data associated with the new material (coffee, toner, paper) to produce an impact index, which is the intended function of the claimed method. Therefore, the substitution is a predictable substitution of one material for another (see MPEP § 2143 (I) (B)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chen, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Independent Claim 18, Comito system for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the following limitations:
- a plurality of hardware modules (see at least Comito: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0037-0038] & ¶ [0040]. Comito notes accessible program modules or portions thereof may be stored in a remote storage device. RAM 130 may include one or more program modules, such as one or more operating systems, application programs, and/or program data.);
- at least one processor (202) (see at least Comito: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0041]. Comito notes one or more processors 156 shown at Fig. 1.) configured to communicate with the plurality of hardware modules (see at least Comito: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0037-0038] & ¶ [0040]. Comito notes accessible program modules or portions thereof may be stored in a remote storage device. RAM 130 may include one or more program modules, such as one or more operating systems, application programs, and/or program data.);
- an input/output (I/o) interface (204) (see at least Comito: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0043]. Comito notes that Network interface 158 is an input/output interface configured for wired or wireless communication with computing network 110, such as a local area network, wide area network, or the Internet.) configured to communicate with the at least one processor (see at least Comito: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0041]. Comito notes one or more processors 156 shown at Fig. 1.);
- a memory unit (206) configured to communicate with the at least one processor (see at least Comito: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0037]. Comito teaches that memory 116 includes one or more computer readable media that includes or may be configured to include data or instructions for manipulating data, and may be accessed by central processing unit 114 through system bus 112. Memory 116 may include, for example, ROM 122, used to permanently store information, and/or RAM 124, used to temporarily store information.), wherein the at least one processor is configured (see at least Comito: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0041]. Comito notes one or more processors 156 shown at Fig. 1.) to:
- selecting at least one product from a plurality of products provided in a predefined list (see at least Comito: ¶ [0051-0052] & ¶ [0111]. Comito notes that a match between some or all of the sub-classification codes indicates whether the item is comparable to product 180. Having at least a predefined number of matching sub-classification codes of the total number of sub-classification codes determines whether a product is comparable to product 180. A product comparable to product 180 is determined by system 100 referencing a list stored in database 128 of comparable products for product 180. The user is prompted to enter a product identifier 190 for an additional or comparable product. See also Comito at ¶ [0051-0052]: “The user enters “Phillips model 423517” for the same product. The user enters the information by typing it into a data entry field, by speaking it into a microphone on network-enabled device 150, by scanning or photographing the description, or by selecting text in a document, webpage, or other computer file. Product identifying information 192 is an image of product packaging or product 180. For example, a consumer shopping online may select an image of product 180 as viewed on a website or may upload the user's own image of product 180 using network-enabled device 150. An image may be compared with data or images in database 128 to identify product 180.”).
Comito system for automatically providing an impact index for a product does not explicitly disclose, but Prieto in the analogous art for automatically providing an impact index for a product does disclose the following:
- identifying a plurality of attributes (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0051-0052]. Prieto notes that each of attribute sets 251-257 includes one or more attributes that include an attribute identifier (e.g., a name, GUID, UUID, etc.) and a corresponding value. First, each of attributes 358 includes a name or identifier (e.g., label, GUID, etc.) corresponding to feature within attribute set 351.) related to a plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0042] & ¶ [0053-0057]. Prieto notes that the “material” attribute could include a modeled expected rate at which concrete is consumed during construction at the project site where a corresponding attribute value might include cubic yards of concrete used-to-date calculated from the modeled expected rate. Further, the attribute values could also include an actual value reflecting the real-world consumed amount of concrete. FIG. 4 provides an overview of generating a social bottom line impact, or other bottom line impacts, as a function of the attributes values across the multiple dimensions of attributes set. The social bottom line impact can be generated by modeling the attribute values for the construction project according project model 440.)
- select at least one set of attributes from the plurality of identified attributes for the at least one product selected (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0042-0043] & ¶ [0053-0056] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto notes that a design engineer, possibly at output device 180, can select assembly objects 150 from assembly database 125 and connect the assembly objects 150 together using logical connectors. See also Prieto at ¶ [0042]: Assembly objects 150 could include physical devices; pumps, pipes, values, control units, cable trays, HVAC units, or other devices. Such assembly objects can be obtained from assembly database 125 and instantiated according to the specific requirements for modeling construction project 110. Assembly objects 150 can cover a broad spectrum of assemblies including mechanical assemblies, module assemblies (e.g., modular processing units, HVAC systems, etc.), know-how, assembled data sets, training materials or documents, maintenance documentation, forms or checklists, or other types of assemblies that can be leveraged over the life cycle of construction project 110. See also Prieto at ¶ [0053]: The “material” attribute could include a modeled expected rate at which concrete is consumed during construction at the project site where a corresponding attribute value might include cubic yards of concrete used-to-date calculated from the modeled expected rate. Further, the attribute values could also include an actual value reflecting the real-world consumed amount of concrete. See also Prieto at ¶ [0056]: Consider the example of the “materials” attributes, which has attributes values associated with a “metal” metric during a construction phase, or a “dust” metric related to an EOL demolition of the project site. See also Prieto at ¶ [0012]: “The modeling engine preferably is further configured to generate one or more bottom line impacts, a social bottom line impact for example, as a function of project-specific attribute values across the multiple dimensions of attributes sets. Example bottom line impacts could include financial impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts, or other types of impacts.”);
- map the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables related to each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0030-0036] & ¶ [0046-0050] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto teaches that establish map 160 according to project module 140 where map 160 maps attribute values of attributes sets of assembly objects 150 to at least a social bottom line. Map 160 euphemistically represents a module capable of operating on project model 140 to simulate or model construction project 110 to arrive at a social bottom line. For example, map 160 could simply be project model 140 where the attributes values within the attributes sets of assembly objects 150 could be indicative of an impact on one or more facets of a social bottom line (e.g., good will, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, job creation, family or local economic impacts, community involvement or development, cultural impact, religious implications, etc.). Map 160 could then be a sum of the values for each facet across each dimension of assembly objects. Another example of map 160 could include a simulation where map 160 applies time-based rules across project model 140. See also Prieto at ¶ [0012]: Example bottom line impacts could include financial impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts, or other types of impacts. See also Prieto at ¶ [0030]: “Expanded set of component attributes can relate to second (environmental) and third (social) bottom lines such as energy, water, greenhouse gases, waste, labor, various social metrics, other.” See also Prieto at ¶ [0050]: Seven dimensions are presented within assembly object 250, one should appreciate that the attribute sets could include at least four dimensions of attributes sets, five dimensions of attributes, six dimensions of attributes, seven dimensions of attributes, or more dimensions of attribute sets. See also Prieto at Fig. 4 noting the “mapping the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables” illustrated at map 460 shown at Fig. 4 of Prieto.), wherein the plurality of variables comprise a plurality of sustainability factors associated with the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0046] & ¶ [0061-0062]. Prieto teaches that the social bottom line impact can include projected social impact 495 that represents a projection of the social bottom line impact from an up-to-date actual social impact 493 where the projection is generated via project model 440 based on the real-world project data and actual social impact 493 applied to product model 440. Thus, projected social impact 495 could include a real-time updated or course corrected representation of the impact. See also Prieto at ¶ [0008]: Prieto teaches indicating that a triple bottom line for measuring success of a project can include taking into account environmental, financial, and social performance.), each variable is mapped with one or more relevant attributes of the selected product (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0026-0030] & ¶ [0053-0056] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto teaches that the expanded set of component attributes can relate to second (environmental) and third (social) bottom lines such as energy, water, greenhouse gases, waste, labor, various social metrics, other. Also that “Project execution model facilitates process status tracking or predictive linkages that support re-sequencing of construction for late delivery of equipment, materials and importantly the means of construction”. See also Prieto at ¶ [0053-0054]: For example, the “material” attribute could include a modeled expected rate at which concrete is consumed during construction at the project site where a corresponding attribute value might include cubic yards of concrete used-to-date calculated from the modeled expected rate. Further, the attribute values could also include an actual value reflecting the real-world consumed amount of concrete. Attributes 358 preferably include properties that directly (i.e., a direct contribution to the bottom-line impact) or indirectly (i.e., used to calculate the bottom-line impact with a project model) relate to a bottom-line impact. In the example show, some of attributes 358 comprises social bottom line properties. See also Prieto at ¶ [0055-0056]: Consider the example of the “materials” attributes, which has attributes values associated with a “metal” metric during a construction phase, or a “dust” metric related to an EOL demolition of the project site. Such metrics lack direct impact on a social bottom line. However, the project model can leverage such information to derive a social bottom line to one or more modeled systems. Consider social bottom line impacts that reflect community involvement or development. The metal metrics or dust/debris removal metric can be used to recommend development of local industries, which increase the community involvement or development in general, not just with the project. Thus, the project model can be considered to include modules configured to or programmed to derive social bottom line impacts from the attribute values across the life cycle of the construction project.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito system for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: identify a plurality of attributes related to a plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected & select at least one set of attributes from the plurality of identified attributes for the at least one product selected & map the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables related to each of the plurality of impact dimensions, wherein the plurality of variables comprise a plurality of sustainability factors associated with the plurality of impact dimensions, each variable is mapped with one or more relevant attributes of the selected product, and in view of Prieto, in order to provide advantageous technical effects including generating signals that configure an output device to present one or more bottom line impacts for a modeled facility (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0019]). Moreover, map 160 could simply be project model 140 where the attributes values within the attributes sets of assembly objects 150 could be indicative of an impact on one or more facets of a social bottom line (e.g., good will, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, job creation, family or local economic impacts, community involvement or development, cultural impact, religious implications, etc.). Map 160 could then be a sum of the values for each facet across each dimension of assembly object (see at least Prieto at ¶ [0046]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Prieto, the results of the combination were predictable.
Comito / Prieto system for automatically providing an impact index for a product does not explicitly disclose, but Chen in the analogous art for automatically providing an impact index for a product does disclose the following:
- determine a plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables mapped (see at least Chen: ¶ [0071-0074] & ¶ [0168-0173]. Chen teaches that the data annotation engine functions as an interface to guide the annotation of sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts. A corpus of sustainability standards can be collected, with different sustainability standards providing information about impacts and practices in different product categories. Each practice may be mapped on an impact, an impact category, a stage and a sub-stage with benefit giving an explanation to the logic. The data annotation engine functions to map practices/specifications onto an impact area and a work step using the annotation framework/methodology. See also Chen at ¶ [0168]: teaches that various impact areas are assigned weights based on their importance for a particular product category. For example, a first product category may have a significant impact on water, resulting in a higher weight for that impact area for the first product category, whereas a second product category may have an impact on water, but to a much lesser degree, resulting in a lower weight for the “water” impact area for the second product category. In various embodiments, impact areas can be assigned with weights indicative of their importance to a particular product category, and product benefit efficiency scores can be weighted based on impact area weights. See also Chen: ¶ [0169]: Impact areas for a product category can be grouped into one of a plurality of “weight categories.” Which weight category a particular impact area should be assigned to can be determined by first calculating a weight value for each impact area for the product category. See also Chen at Fig. 10 noting that “impact areas are mapped onto UN Sustainable Development Goals” and Chen at ¶ [0071-0074] such as “sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts.”.) and at least one set of attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Chen: Fig. 4 & Fig. 14 & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0212]. Chen notes that It's possible to hit sustainability targets, but what it actually means in terms of procurement breakdowns and cost differentials is discerned for the user. This is enabled by calculating average deltas in pricing information of product attributes and impact offsets. See also Chen at ¶ [0041]: The system described herein may provide analytics and footprint tracking platform to improve reporting and long-term sustainability planning, and organization (e.g., government agencies) may be able to draw meaning from existing meta-data sources (E.g., corporate metadata sources) with machine learning to cross-reference highest impact areas of millions of goods and services based on production-level specifications, attributes, and certifications. See also Chen at Fig. 4 noting “a plurality of impact dimensions or impact areas in a 2 x 2 matrix or table as compared to the coffee work steps.”).
- automatically determine an impact index of the at least one product (see at least Chen: ¶ [0004-0005] & ¶ [0059]. Chen teaches that the augmented sustainability management and analytics system 102 utilizes machine learning to infer product sustainability from phylogenetic methods to fill in unknown Product Category Rules, Liability Impact areas and also Environmental Product Declarations and Benefit Offset Opportunities with 3 relationship trees using phylogenetic methodology. A product benefit efficiency scores may be calculated for each product of the plurality of products based on the subset of impact areas and the subset of offsets associated with each product. One or more product recommendations may be determined for a user based on the product benefit efficiency scores.) for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the plurality of weightages (see at least Chen: ¶ [0078-0079] & ¶ [0086-0087] & ¶ [0168-0173]. Chen notes that the annotation structure of the data allows for a deep search tool, which indexes across ecolabels, impacts, stages, product categories and practices. See also Chen at ¶ [abstract]: A product benefit efficiency score may be calculated for each product of the plurality of products based on the subset of impact areas and the subset of offsets associated with each product. One or more product recommendations may be determined for a user based on the product benefit efficiency scores. See also Chen at ¶ [0086-0087]: Here i,j are the practice indexes, S is the total number of worksteps in the annotation matrix (e.g., in the matrices from the previous section, there are six “product stages,” so S=6), L is the number of Impacts in the annotation matrix (e.g., using the example impact areas discussed above, L=29) and k is the index over the grid.) for the plurality of variables mapped (see at least Chen: ¶ [0071-0074] & ¶ [0168-0173]. Chen teaches that the data annotation engine functions as an interface to guide the annotation of sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts. A corpus of sustainability standards can be collected, with different sustainability standards providing information about impacts and practices in different product categories. Each practice may be mapped on an impact, an impact category, a stage and a sub-stage with benefit giving an explanation to the logic. The data annotation engine functions to map practices/specifications onto an impact area and a work step using the annotation framework/methodology. See also Chen at ¶ [0168]: teaches that various impact areas are assigned weights based on their importance for a particular product category. For example, a first product category may have a significant impact on water, resulting in a higher weight for that impact area for the first product category, whereas a second product category may have an impact on water, but to a much lesser degree, resulting in a lower weight for the “water” impact area for the second product category. In various embodiments, impact areas can be assigned with weights indicative of their importance to a particular product category, and product benefit efficiency scores can be weighted based on impact area weights. See also Chen: ¶ [0169]: Impact areas for a product category can be grouped into one of a plurality of “weight categories.” Which weight category a particular impact area should be assigned to can be determined by first calculating a weight value for each impact area for the product category. See also Chen at Fig. 10 noting that “impact areas are mapped onto UN Sustainable Development Goals” and Chen at ¶ [0071-0074] such as “sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts.”), wherein the plurality of impact dimensions comprise environmental impacts (see at least Chen: ¶ [0032] & Fig. 4 & Fig. 10.), social impacts (see at least Chen: ¶ [0032] & ¶ [0051] & ¶ [0055].), health impacts (see at least Chen: Fig. 4 & ¶ [0031] & Fig. 10.) and economic impacts (see at least Chen: Fig. 4 & ¶ [0032] & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0075].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto system for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: determine a plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables mapped, and at least one set of attributes related to the plurality of impact dimensions & automatically determine an impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables mapped, wherein the plurality of impact dimensions comprise Environmental impacts, Social impacts, Health impacts, and Economic impacts, and in further view of Chen, whereby substituting construction materials with coffee, toner, or paper can be structured by arguing it is a simple substitution of materials to achieve known sustainability goals (e.g., lower carbon footprint, circular economy). Examiner notes that the “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. Coffee grounds, used toner, or recycled paper are known, sustainable materials often used in filler or composite applications. By substituting these materials for traditional, non-sustainable components (like plastic fillers or aggregates) produces predictable improvements in sustainability metrics (e.g., reduced CO2 footprint, increased recycled content). Moreover, the motivation to combine is based on industry trends, environmental regulations, or market pressure for greener, bio-based building materials as the motivation for the substitution in order to achieve a sustainability score or sustainability index of a product selected when considering each of the plurality of impact dimensions or impact areas. The substitution does not produce a "new" or "unexpected" result, as the system merely processes the data associated with the new material (coffee, toner, paper) to produce an impact index, which is the intended function of the claimed method. Therefore, the substitution is a predictable substitution of one material for another (see MPEP § 2143 (I) (B)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chen, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Chen further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the impact index (see also Chen: ¶ [0073] & ¶ [0078] & ¶ [0086-0087]: Chen teaches that “The annotation structure of the data allows for a deep search tool, which indexes across ecolabels, impacts, stages, product categories and practices.”) is a sustainability score of the product for the each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Chen: Fig. 4 & ¶ [abstract] & ¶ [0059]. Chen teaches that a plurality of impact areas associated with each product category of the plurality of product categories, a plurality of offsets, each offset associated with an impact area, and a plurality of products, each product associated with a subset of impact areas of the plurality of impact areas and a subset of offsets of the plurality of offsets. A product benefit efficiency score may be calculated for each product of the plurality of products based on the subset of impact areas and the subset of offsets associated with each product. One or more product recommendations may be determined for a user based on the product benefit efficiency scores. See also Chen at ¶ [0059]: The augmented sustainability management and analytics system utilizes machine learning to infer product sustainability.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the impact index is a sustainability score of the product for the each of the plurality of impact dimensions, and in further view of Chen, whereby substituting construction materials with coffee, toner, or paper can be structured by arguing it is a simple substitution of materials to achieve known sustainability goals (e.g., lower carbon footprint, circular economy). Examiner notes that the “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. Coffee grounds, used toner, or recycled paper are known, sustainable materials often used in filler or composite applications. By substituting these materials for traditional, non-sustainable components (like plastic fillers or aggregates) produces predictable improvements in sustainability metrics (e.g., reduced CO2 footprint, increased recycled content). Moreover, the motivation to combine is based on industry trends, environmental regulations, or market pressure for greener, bio-based building materials as the motivation for the substitution in order to achieve a sustainability score or sustainability index of a product selected when considering each of the plurality of impact dimensions or impact areas. The substitution does not produce a "new" or "unexpected" result, as the system merely processes the data associated with the new material (coffee, toner, paper) to produce an impact index, which is the intended function of the claimed method. Therefore, the substitution is a predictable substitution of one material for another (see MPEP § 2143 (I) (B)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chen, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claims 3 and 21, Comito / Prieto / Chen method / system for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claims 1 and 18 above, and Chen further teaches the method / system for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the impact index (see at least Chen: ¶ [0073] & ¶ [0078-0079] & ¶ [0086-0087]. Chen teaches that the data annotation engine 112 structures standards and ecolabels in a format that is searchable and indexable. The methodology groups practices into Practice Details, Practice Categories and Practices. These may be arranged in a hierarchy allowing users to observe structures and patterns across product categories. Each practice may be mapped on an impact, an impact category, a stage and a sub-stage with benefit giving an explanation to the logic. See also Chen at ¶ [0078-0079]: “The annotation structure of the data allows for a deep search tool, which indexes across ecolabels, impacts, stages, product categories and practices. Data structured into a format that is searchable and indexable and that data can be augmented using machine learning methods”. See also Chen at ¶ [0086-0087]: Here i,j are the practice indexes, S is the total number of worksteps in the annotation matrix (e.g., in the matrices from the previous section, there are six “product stages,” so S=6), L is the number of Impacts in the annotation matrix (e.g., using the example impact areas discussed above, L=29) and k is the index over the grid. “Where S1, S2, S3, S4 are four example stages (e.g., Pre-Production, Production, Packaging, Distribution) and I1, I2, I3 are three example Impact areas (e.g., cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil). The number “1” is used to indicate that this stage/impact intersection is relevant for the Practice and zero means it is not relevant. The system 102 can subtract all of these grids from each other to build the distance matrix D=D_{i,j}”. See also Chen at ¶ [0092-0095] noting stages/impact matrix.) of the at least one product is displayed for each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Chen: ¶ [0055] & ¶ [0073] & Figs. 4-5 & (Figs. 6A-6B). Chen notes that various product categories (e.g., paper, coffee, toner, displays, phones, etc.) may have different environmental, fiscal, and/or social impacts at each stage of production. See for example coffee displayed in Fig. 4 with impact areas or impact dimensions of reduced waste, cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil, health choice, workers rights, local businesses and animal welfare or shore in comparison of the work steps. These may be arranged in a hierarchy allowing users to observe structures and patterns across product categories. Each practice may be mapped on an impact, an impact category, a stage and a sub-stage with benefit giving an explanation to the logic.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method / system for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the impact index of the at least one product is displayed for each of the plurality of impact dimensions, and in further view of Chen, whereby the data annotation engine functions as an interface to guide the annotation of sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts. A corpus of sustainability standards can be collected, with different sustainability standards providing information about impacts and practices in different product categories (see at least Chen: ¶ [0071]). Rather than calculating an average product benefit efficiency improvement per dollar spent within a particular product category, this metric can be calculated across multiple product categories, or across all product categories. Then the improvement from one product to another can be compared to the average improvement rate for multiple and/or all categories to determine whether a change from one product to another would be sensible (see at least Chen: ¶ [0235]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chen, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claims 4 and 22, Comito / Prieto / Chen method / system for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claims 1 and 18 above, and Chen further teaches the method/system for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the method further comprises the step of generating and displaying a benefit index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions / wherein a benefit index of the at least one product is generated for each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Chen: ¶ [0004] & ¶ [0229-0235] & Fig. 6B. Chen notes that product benefit efficiency scores may be calculated for each product of the plurality of products based on the subset of impact areas and the subset of offsets associated with each product. One or more product recommendations may be determined for a user based on the product benefit efficiency scores. “See also displaying of impact dimensions shown at ¶ [0087] and ¶ [0092-0095]”. See also Chen at ¶ [0215-0217]: Paper A has a product benefit efficiency score of 80% and costs $10, while Paper B has a product benefit efficiency score of 30% and costs $3, and Paper C has a product benefit efficiency score of 40% and costs $8. See also displaying of benefit index or efficiency index of paper A to paper B to paper C. See also Chen at ¶ [0231-0233]: “The application may calculate product benefit efficiency improvement per dollar rates for a plurality of alternative products, and may display a list of alternative product options ranked based on improvement rate. The user can then identify which product they wish to change to based on the information presented”. The application could then calculate product benefit efficiency improvement per dollar rates for each of those coffee products with respect to Coffee A. For example, Coffee B may have a product benefit efficiency score of 60% and may cost $3 per lb., while Coffee C has a product benefit efficiency score of 65% and has a cost of $4 per lb. The product benefit efficiency improvement rate for Coffee B can be calculated as: (60%−50%)/($3−$2)=10%/$1=10% per dollar.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method / system for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the method further comprises the set of generating and displaying a benefit index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions, and in further view of Chen, whereby the data annotation engine functions as an interface to guide the annotation of sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts. A corpus of sustainability standards can be collected, with different sustainability standards providing information about impacts and practices in different product categories (see at least Chen: ¶ [0071]). Rather than calculating an average product benefit efficiency improvement per dollar spent within a particular product category, this metric can be calculated across multiple product categories, or across all product categories. Then the improvement from one product to another can be compared to the average improvement rate for multiple and/or all categories to determine whether a change from one product to another would be sensible (see at least Chen: ¶ [0235]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chen, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 6 above, and Comito further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the at least one set of attributes from the plurality of attributes is selected (see at least Comito: ¶ [0109-0111]. Comito notes that determining a comparable product for product 180 in a given classification code, sub-classification codes are compared with other products having the same classification code. A database is established that contains sub-classification codes for a variety of products and that describe attributes of the individual products.) based on a predetermined cut-off of the corresponding attribute for the at least one product selected (see at least Comito: ¶ [0077] & ¶ [0110] & ¶ [0120-0121]. Comito notes that weight factor values are optionally set or determined for each impact value component. Weight factor values are predetermined values. A database is established that contains sub-classification codes for a variety of products and that describe attributes of the individual products. A match between one or more sub-classification codes indicates a comparable product. See also Comito at Table 1 & ¶ [0120-0121] noting “number of units manufactured this period comparing product X made in China to versus product Y made in USA.”)
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 6 above, and Comito further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the predetermined cutoff of the attribute is selected from a group (see at least Comito: ¶ [0077] & ¶ [0110] & ¶ [0120-0121]. Comito notes that weight factor values are optionally set or determined for each impact value component. Weight factor values are predetermined values. A database is established that contains sub-classification codes for a variety of products and that describe attributes of the individual products. A match between one or more sub-classification codes indicates a comparable product. See also Comito at Table 1 & ¶ [0120-0121] noting “number of units manufactured this period comparing product X made in China to versus product Y made in USA.”) comprising a geographical region (see at least Comito: ¶ [0048] & ¶ [0059-0061] & ¶ [0063]. Comito notes that a method 500 of rating product 180, where the score or rating output to the user is based on economic values associated with product 180 and the economic impact attributed to product 180 for a local, state, regional, national, or other geographic region referred to as the perimeter of interest. See also Comito at ¶ [0059-0061]: “For example, a user selects the United States as the perimeter of interest and Great Britain as an additional perimeter of interest. The extra-perimeter territory would then be the world except for the US and Great Britain. The perimeter of interest is defined by the user inputting or selecting the name of a city, county, state, region, country, continent, or other geographic region. For example, the user inputs “New England” or selects the name from a list to define the perimeter of interest as the six states of the New England region of the United States.), a local community (see at least Comito: ¶ [0048] & ¶ [0114].), a region of manufacture (see at least Comito: ¶ [0112] & ¶ [0120-0121].), a document related to the product (see at least Comito: ¶ [0051] & ¶ [0072]. Comito notes that the user enters the information by typing it into a data entry field, by speaking it into a microphone on network-enabled device 150, by scanning or photographing the description, or by selecting text in a document, webpage, or other computer file. For example, one or more economic values are obtained by computing network 110 accessing, reading, and extracting information from public documents, state filing documents, and/or federal filing documents using electronic document retrieval, text recognition, data parsing, and data crawling techniques known in the art. For example, brand entity financial information is obtained by retrieving an annual 10K report of a brand entity from the EDGAR database of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, extracting total revenues, expenses, and other financial data, and storing the values in database 128 or memory 116 of computing network 110 for use in calculations and determinations.), and a threshold value influencing the plurality of impact dimensions and variables
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Comito further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the method further comprises the step of receiving at least one input data from a user (see at least Comito: ¶ [0016] & ¶ [0020] & ¶ [0039]. Comito notes that employed to enable a user to input data and/or instructions to computing network 110 through one or more corresponding input devices 152 on network-enabled device 150. See also Comito at ¶ [0016]: Receiving a product identifier of a product from a network-enabled device disposed at a first location and in communication with a computing network at a second location. A geographic perimeter of interest is defined based on input received from the network-enabled device. The input received is input entered by the user or the location of the network-enabled device. See also Comito at ¶ [0020]: The weighted sum is weighted based on a user input received by the network-enabled device.) through an input/output (I/O) interface (see at least Comito: ¶ [0043] & Fig. 1. Comito notes that Network interface 158 is an input/output interface configured for wired or wireless communication with computing network 110, such as a local area network, wide area network, or the Internet.), wherein the input data (see at least Comito: ¶ [0016] & ¶ [0020] & ¶ [0039].) comprises an information of at least one product selected by the user (see at least Comito: ¶ [0050-0052]. Comito notes that product identifying information 192 that identifies product 180. Product identifier 190 includes product-identifying information 192. Product-identifying information 192 can be one or more items (e.g, word, number, symbol, image, or phrase) that identify a product or group of products based on information that is typically interpreted by a human. Product identifying information 192 includes, for example, a brand name, model name, model number, color, size, quantity, specification, feature, description, image, trademark, and the like. For example, a user enters “Philips 15-Watt (75 W) LED 6 inch Recessed Downlight Soft White (2700K) Light Bulb” as observed.)
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Comito further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein selecting at least one product from a plurality of products provided in a predefined list (see at least Comito: ¶ [0051-0052] & ¶ [0111]. Comito notes that a match between some or all of the sub-classification codes indicates whether the item is comparable to product 180. Having at least a predefined number of matching sub-classification codes of the total number of sub-classification codes determines whether a product is comparable to product 180. A product comparable to product 180 is determined by system 100 referencing a list stored in database 128 of comparable products for product 180. The user is prompted to enter a product identifier 190 for an additional or comparable product. See also Comito at ¶ [0051-0052]: “The user enters “Phillips model 423517” for the same product. The user enters the information by typing it into a data entry field, by speaking it into a microphone on network-enabled device 150, by scanning or photographing the description, or by selecting text in a document, webpage, or other computer file. Product identifying information 192 is an image of product packaging or product 180. For example, a consumer shopping online may select an image of product 180 as viewed on a website or may upload the user's own image of product 180 using network-enabled device 150. An image may be compared with data or images in database 128 to identify product 180.”) comprises:
- receiving at least one input data from a user (see at least Comito: ¶ [0016] & ¶ [0020] & ¶ [0039]. Comito notes that employed to enable a user to input data and/or instructions to computing network 110 through one or more corresponding input devices 152 on network-enabled device 150. See also Comito at ¶ [0016]: Receiving a product identifier of a product from a network-enabled device disposed at a first location and in communication with a computing network at a second location. A geographic perimeter of interest is defined based on input received from the network-enabled device. The input received is input entered by the user or the location of the network-enabled device. See also Comito at ¶ [0020]: The weighted sum is weighted based on a user input received by the network-enabled device.) through an input/output (I/O) interface (see at least Comito: ¶ [0043] & Fig. 1. Comito notes that Network interface 158 is an input/output interface configured for wired or wireless communication with computing network 110, such as a local area network, wide area network, or the Internet.)
- detecting at least one product from the predefined list based on the input data (see at least Comito: ¶ [0026] & ¶ [0051-0052] & ¶ [0110-0112]. Comito notes that a database is established that contains sub-classification codes for a variety of products and that describe attributes of the individual products. The system also is configured to determine one or more brand entity economic values attributed to the product. See also Comito at ¶ [0009]: “Obtaining health and financial information about products. Based on a code scanned by the user, the system identifies the product and obtains price and health information about the product”. See also Comito at ¶ [0051-0052]: Product identifier includes product-identifying information 192. Product-identifying information 192 can be one or more items (e.g., word, number, symbol, image, or phrase) that identify a product or group of products based on information that is typically interpreted by a human. Product identifying information 192 includes, for example, a brand name, model name, model number, color, size, quantity, specification, feature, description, image, trademark, and the like. Method 500 incorporates image analysis software to analyze the shape, size, color, text, numbers, geometry, and relative dimensions to identify what the product is and, if possible, its source. See also Comito at ¶ [0111]: A product comparable to product 180 is determined by system 100 referencing a list stored in database 128 of comparable products for product 180. In some embodiments, the user is prompted to enter a product identifier 190 for an additional or comparable product. For example, network-enabled device 150 prompts the user to scan or enter a product identifier 190 for an additional product. Thus, when a consumer is deciding between two products available for sale, whether one of the products is comparable to the other or not, system 100.)
- identifying the product using an image processing (see at least Comito: ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0052]. Comito notes that method 500 incorporates image analysis software to analyze the shape, size, color, text, numbers, geometry, and relative dimensions to identify what the product is and, if possible, its source. If insufficient information is available from the image, method 500 optionally prompts the user to try again or to enter additional information, such as brand name, model number, or a code.) method by a camera (see at least Comito: ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0052-0054]. Comito notes that the data gathering device 152 may be a keyboard, touch screen, bar code reader, camera, RFID reader, optical reader, and/or other data gathering equipment configured to obtain a product identity of a particular product. See also Comito at ¶ [0053-0054]: “A smart phone is used to read a bar code from product packaging, where input device 152 is the phone's camera configured with software for reading bar codes. Network-enabled device 150, such as a smart phone equipped with a camera configured to read bar codes, is positioned near product identifier 190 (e.g., bar code) on product 180, so that the phone can receive a particular data set based on the white and black regions of the bar code.) and at least one processor of a system (see at least Comito: ¶ [0036] & Fig. 1. Comito notes that the central processing unit 114 includes one or more processors, such as a central processor, and optionally one or more other processors designed to perform a particular function or task.).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Prieto further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the method further comprises the set of iteratively selecting at least one set of attributes from the plurality of attributes for the at least one product selected (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0043] & ¶ [0053-0054] & Figs. 2-4.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the method further comprises the set of iteratively selecting at least one set of attributes from the plurality of attributes for the at least one product selected, and in further view of Prieto, in order to provide advantageous technical effects including generating signals that configure an output device to present one or more bottom line impacts for a modeled facility (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0019]). Moreover, map 160 could simply be project model 140 where the attributes values within the attributes sets of assembly objects 150 could be indicative of an impact on one or more facets of a social bottom line (e.g., good will, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, job creation, family or local economic impacts, community involvement or development, cultural impact, religious implications, etc.). Map 160 could then be a sum of the values for each facet across each dimension of assembly object (see at least Prieto at ¶ [0046]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Prieto, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 8 above, and Prieto further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the at least one set of attributes are iteratively selected (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0043] & ¶ [0053-0056] & Figs. 2-4.) till the plurality of variables are mapped with at least one set of attributes for all the plurality of products (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0046] & ¶ [0053-0056]. Prieto teaches that map 160 maps attribute values of attributes sets of assembly objects 150 to at least a social bottom line. Map 160 euphemistically represents a module capable of operating on project model 140 to simulate or model construction project 110 to arrive at a social bottom line. For example, map 160 could simply be project model 140 where the attributes values within the attributes sets of assembly objects 150 could be indicative of an impact on one or more facets of a social bottom line (e.g., good will, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, job creation, family or local economic impacts, community involvement or development, cultural impact, religious implications, etc.). Map 160 could then be a sum of the values for each facet across each dimension of assembly objects. See also Prieto at ¶ [0056].)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the at least one set of attributes are iteratively selected till the plurality of variables are mapped with at least one set of attributes for all the plurality of products, and in further view of Prieto, in order to provide advantageous technical effects including generating signals that configure an output device to present one or more bottom line impacts for a modeled facility (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0019]). Moreover, map 160 could simply be project model 140 where the attributes values within the attributes sets of assembly objects 150 could be indicative of an impact on one or more facets of a social bottom line (e.g., good will, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, job creation, family or local economic impacts, community involvement or development, cultural impact, religious implications, etc.). Map 160 could then be a sum of the values for each facet across each dimension of assembly object (see at least Prieto at ¶ [0046]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Prieto, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Chen further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables (see at least Chen: ¶ [0168-0173] & ¶ [0190-0193].) comprises the step of:
- determining a relationship value of each of the plurality of variables (see at least Chen: ¶ [0059] & ¶ [0072] & ¶ [0097-0101].) based on a relationship between the plurality of attributes, the plurality of variables and the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Chen: ¶ [0032] & ¶ [0038] & Fig. 4 & Fig. 10.);
- determining a first weightage for each attribute of the at least one set of attributes selected based on strength and influence of each attribute with other attributes (see at least Chen: ¶ [0168-0173] & ¶ [0190-0193].);
- determining a second weightage for each variable of the plurality of variables using the first weightage for each attribute and the relationship value (see at least Chen: ¶ [0168-0173] & ¶ [0190-0193].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables & determining a relationship value of each of the plurality of variables based on a relationship between the plurality of attributes, the plurality of variables and the plurality of impact dimensions & determining a first weightage for each attribute of the at least one set of attributes selected based on strength and influence of each attribute with other attributes & determining a second weightage for each variable of the plurality of variables using the first weightage for each attribute and the relationship value, and in further view of Chen, whereby the data annotation engine functions as an interface to guide the annotation of sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts. A corpus of sustainability standards can be collected, with different sustainability standards providing information about impacts and practices in different product categories (see at least Chen: ¶ [0071]). Rather than calculating an average product benefit efficiency improvement per dollar spent within a particular product category, this metric can be calculated across multiple product categories, or across all product categories. Then the improvement from one product to another can be compared to the average improvement rate for multiple and/or all categories to determine whether a change from one product to another would be sensible (see at least Chen: ¶ [0235]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chen, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, Comito / Prieto / Chen system for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 18 above, and Prieto further teaches the system for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the plurality of hardware modules comprise a matrix generation module (212), a data gathering module (214), an evaluation and weightage module (216), an environment sustainability module (218), a social sustainability module (220), a health sustainability module (222), a monetary sustainability module (224), a mapping module (226), and a decision module (228) (see at least Prieto: Fig. 1 & ¶ [0042] & ¶ [0049] & ¶ [0056].)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen system for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the plurality of hardware modules comprise a matrix generation module (212), a data gathering module (214), an evaluation and weightage module (216), an environment sustainability module (218), a social sustainability module (220), a health sustainability module (222), a monetary sustainability module (224), a mapping module (226), and a decision module (228), and in view of Prieto, in order to provide advantageous technical effects including generating signals that configure an output device to present one or more bottom line impacts for a modeled facility (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0019]). Moreover, map 160 could simply be project model 140 where the attributes values within the attributes sets of assembly objects 150 could be indicative of an impact on one or more facets of a social bottom line (e.g., good will, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, job creation, family or local economic impacts, community involvement or development, cultural impact, religious implications, etc.). Map 160 could then be a sum of the values for each facet across each dimension of assembly object (see at least Prieto at ¶ [0046]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Prieto, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Comito / Prieto / Chen system for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 18 above, and Comito further teaches the system for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein the system further comprises a database (210) (see at least Comito: ¶ [0045] & Fig. 1. Comito notes that one example of system 100 is a single retail store where computing network 110 is a single desktop computer with network interface 120 being a wireless router. The desktop computer includes central processing unit 114, memory 116, and mass storage device 118 with a database 128.).
15. Claims 5, 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2014/0040160 A1) hereinafter Comito, in view of US PG Pub (US 2013/0238379 A1) hereinafter Prieto, in further view of US PG Pub (US 2018/0300793 A1) hereinafter Chen, and in further view of US PG Pub (US 2010/0030601 A1) hereinafter Warther, et. al.
Regarding Dependent Claims 5 and 23, Comito / Prieto / Chen method/system for automatically providing an impact index for a product does not explicitly disclose, but Warther in the analogous art for automatically providing an impact index for a product does disclose the following:
- wherein the benefit index is a relative index providing a comparison of the impact index of the at least one product against the impact index of a baseline product, for each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Warther: ¶ [abstract]. Warther notes defining a product within a product family wherein products perform equivalent functions; defining a set of environmental, social, and economic criteria; selecting a product from said product family as a baseline for comparison; and scoring said product compared to said baseline for each of said criteria. See also Warther noting FIGS. 2A-2F are tables that present examples of criteria as well as life cycle stages for which the product is scored against the baseline. See also Warther noting at ¶ [0018]: For example, for packing 250 g of retorted pet food, alternative packaging devices, such as a can, a pouch, or a tray, can be compared against each other. Different comparable products, such as the different packaging devices, form a family. A set of environmental, social, and economic criteria is defined 202. A baseline product from the same product family is selected as a “baseline” 204. All other products are compared against it. A product being compared is assigned a score 206 in comparison to the baseline product for each criterion or the aggregated representation of each criterion (in the case of some quantitative criteria). See also Warther noting at ¶ [0046] & Fig. 6: The overall sustainability index is derived by calculating a weighted average of the three overall scores from the environmental, social, and economic aspects.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method / system for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the benefit index is a relative index providing a comparison of the impact index of the at least one product against the impact index of a baseline product, for each of the plurality of impact dimensions, and in further view of Warther, whereby a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to improve sustainability, cost-effectiveness, or modify the physical properties of the construction product, would look to similar, abundant, low-cost bio-based fillers or sustainable materials. Given that pet food ingredients are often upcycled products, replacing materials (like sand or polymeric fillers) with processed, dried, or granular pet food materials is a predictable substitution. The substitution is expected to provide predictable results in terms of the "impact index" (e.g., lower CO2 footprint, altered density). The claimed invention specifies a benefit index comparing the impact index of the modified product (pet food) against a baseline product (conventional). Because the substitution of one filler/aggregate material for another to affect properties like weight, cost, or sustainability is a predictable technique in material science, this comparative calculation constitutes a known "comparison of the impact index". The combination is obvious because it constitutes the substitution of a known material (pet food/animal byproduct) for a construction product or construction material to achieve a predictable, expected modification in the overall impact index, with the relative benefit index calculation being a method of measurement in industrial material analysis used for determining sustainability scoring of products. Therefore, the substitution is a predictable substitution of one material for another (see MPEP § 2143 (I) (B)). Alternatively, known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations for use in a different one (see MPEP § 2143 (I) (F)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chen, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Chen further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein automatically determining an impact index of the at least one product (see at least Chen: ¶ [0004-0005] & ¶ [0059]. Chen teaches that the augmented sustainability management and analytics system 102 utilizes machine learning to infer product sustainability from phylogenetic methods to fill in unknown Product Category Rules, Liability Impact areas and also Environmental Product Declarations and Benefit Offset Opportunities with 3 relationship trees using phylogenetic methodology. A product benefit efficiency scores may be calculated for each product of the plurality of products based on the subset of impact areas and the subset of offsets associated with each product. One or more product recommendations may be determined for a user based on the product benefit efficiency scores.) for each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Chen: ¶ [0078-0079] & ¶ [0086-0087] & ¶ [0168-0173]. Chen notes that the annotation structure of the data allows for a deep search tool, which indexes across ecolabels, impacts, stages, product categories and practices. See also Chen at ¶ [abstract]: A product benefit efficiency score may be calculated for each product of the plurality of products based on the subset of impact areas and the subset of offsets associated with each product. One or more product recommendations may be determined for a user based on the product benefit efficiency scores. See also Chen at ¶ [0086-0087]: Here i,j are the practice indexes, S is the total number of worksteps in the annotation matrix (e.g., in the matrices from the previous section, there are six “product stages,” so S=6), L is the number of Impacts in the annotation matrix (e.g., using the example impact areas discussed above, L=29) and k is the index over the grid.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen system for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein automatically determining an impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions, and in further view of Chen, whereby substituting construction materials with coffee, toner, or paper can be structured by arguing it is a simple substitution of materials to achieve known sustainability goals (e.g., lower carbon footprint, circular economy). Examiner notes that the “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. Coffee grounds, used toner, or recycled paper are known, sustainable materials often used in filler or composite applications. By substituting these materials for traditional, non-sustainable components (like plastic fillers or aggregates) produces predictable improvements in sustainability metrics (e.g., reduced CO2 footprint, increased recycled content). Moreover, the motivation to combine is based on industry trends, environmental regulations, or market pressure for greener, bio-based building materials as the motivation for the substitution in order to achieve a sustainability score or sustainability index of a product selected when considering each of the plurality of impact dimensions or impact areas. The substitution does not produce a "new" or "unexpected" result, as the system merely processes the data associated with the new material (coffee, toner, paper) to produce an impact index, which is the intended function of the claimed method. Therefore, the substitution is a predictable substitution of one material for another (see MPEP § 2143 (I) (B)).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chen, the results of the combination were predictable.
However, regarding Dependent Claim 14, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product does not explicitly disclose, but Warther in the analogous art for automatically providing an impact index for a product does disclose the following:
- determining an intermediate product score for each of the plurality of impact dimensions by (see at least Warther: ¶ [0040]. Warther notes that an example for the results of the scoring for selected criteria (environmental, social, economic) is given in FIG. 4. Specific weaknesses (hot-spots), i.e. where the product score is ‘−2’ in this embodiment or strengths (product score is ‘+2’) are preferably shown in color or otherwise prominently displayed for easy consideration by the user.) summing up the plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables for each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Warther: ¶ [0015] & ¶ [0018-0020]. Warther notes that FIG. 6 illustrates an example of presenting the aggregated results within the three pillars of sustainability and the overall normalized sustainability index. ¶ [0018-0020]: A product being compared is assigned a score 206 in comparison to the baseline product for each criterion or the aggregated representation of each criterion (in the case of some quantitative criteria). An overall sustainability index may also be derived by calculating an average weighted score for each of the environmental, social, and economic general aspects and then computing a weighted average of the environmental, social, and economic average scores 210. A sustainability profile (overview of strengths and weaknesses compared to a baseline product); and a sustainability index aggregating all of the aforementioned sustainability aspects.)
- determining the impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Warther: ¶ [0019-0020] & ¶ [0046-0047]) by:
- normalizing the intermediate product score for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the intermediate product score of an ideal product (see at least Warther: ¶ [0015] & ¶ [0027] & ¶ [0038] & ¶ [0046-0047]. Warther notes that three pillars of sustainability and the overall normalized sustainability index, also showing specific strengths (green flags) and weaknesses (red flags) of the product compared the baseline. The product and the baseline are quantitatively compared based on these indicators. Normalization according to [ISO 14040: 2006], followed by a further aggregation (e.g. calculating the sum of the normalized indicators with or without weighting) may be applied if desired or if otherwise no clear scoring (see below) can be achieved. See also Warther at ¶ [0038]: Then the scoring is derived based on a comparison of the aggregated normalized indicators of the product and the baseline. See also Warther at ¶ [0046]: The overall sustainability index is derived by calculating a weighted average of the three overall scores from the environmental, social, and economic aspects. The weighted average may be expressed as a percentage of difference compared to the baseline, via normalization (with −2 and 2 being -31 100% and +100%, respectively, relating to the examples given).
- wherein the ideal product relates to a same category of at least one product selected (see at least Warther: Fig. 3 & ¶ [0018] & ¶ [0023-0026]. Warther notes transport means and transport distances, from delivering the product to the customer, for example, as well as other processes relevant for the life cycle, may be defined. This data is then linked to databases that deliver impact category indicator results for all inputs and outputs or the corresponding processes. The databases contain life cycle impact category indicator results based on life cycle inventories for the production of the different inputs and generation of the different outputs as well as for specific processes (e. g. waste treatment of a particular plastic material. See also Warther at ¶ [0018]: “A product family is defined 200. The tool allows comparing products that perform equivalent functions and which are therefore grouped in a same product family. A baseline product from the same product family is selected as a “baseline” 204.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: determining an intermediate product score for each of the plurality of impact dimensions by summing up the plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables for each of the plurality of impact dimensions & determining the impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions by & normalizing the intermediate product score for each of the plurality of impact dimensions using the intermediate product score of an ideal product, wherein the ideal product relates to a same category of at least one product selected, and in further view of Warther, whereby different comparable products, such as the different packaging devices, form a family. A set of environmental, social, and economic criteria is defined. A baseline product from the same product family is selected as a “baseline”. All other products are compared against it. All scoring is relative to the baseline. A product being compared is assigned a score in comparison to the baseline product for each criterion or the aggregated representation of each criterion (in the case of some quantitative criteria) (see at least Warther: ¶ [0018]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Warther, the results of the combination were predictable.
16. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2014/0040160 A1) hereinafter Comito, in view of US PG Pub (US 2013/0238379 A1) hereinafter Prieto, in further view of US PG Pub (US 2018/0300793 A1) hereinafter Chen, and in further view of NPL Document: "An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green campus operations: Towards higher education sustainability." Sustainability 12.1 (2020)”, hereinafter Gholami, Hamed, et al.
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product does not explicitly disclose, but Gholami, Hamed, et al. in the analogous art for automatically providing an impact index for a product does disclose the following:
- wherein the impact index of the at least one product (see at least Gholami, Hamed, et al: Page 8 of 19 & Tables 3-4. Gholami teaches that the lack of recycling places to recycle materials such as glass and batteries, the hassle of riding a green bike or the inconvenience of taking a walk during high traffic zones to get to and from off-campus apartments serves as barriers to achieve
campus sustainability.) for each of the plurality of impact dimensions is automatically determined by processing the plurality of variables for each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Gholami, Hamed, et al: Page 8 of 19 & Tables 3-4. Gholami notes that the important characteristics of ISM thoroughly enumerated by this methodology is interpretive as the judgment of the group will define whether and how the various elements are related; it is also structural based on the correlation whereby an overall structure is extracted from the complex set of variables; it is a modeling technique as the specific relationships and overall structure are portrayed in a digraph model; it contributes to impose order and direction on the complication of relationship among different elements of a system. Table 3 on page 11 of 19 noting “a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM).” See also Gholami, Hamed at Page 3 of 19: “The increasing scientific communities and institutions are actively involving themselves in augmenting the value for both learners and HEIs to break through social, environmental and economic aspects.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method / system for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein the impact index of the at least one product for each of the plurality of impact dimensions is automatically determined by processing the plurality of variables for each of the plurality of impact dimensions, and in further view of Gholami, Hamed, et al, where the practical implications present a systematic model of key barriers for implementing green campus operations, which could make it generally applicable in higher educational establishments. This can help the management in deciding on the priority and focusing on those barriers that hinder successful implementation (see at least Gholami, Hamed, et al: Page 16 of 19).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Gholami, Hamed, et al, the results of the combination were predictable.
17. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2014/0040160 A1) hereinafter Comito, in view of US PG Pub (US 2013/0238379 A1) hereinafter Prieto, in further view of US PG Pub (US 2018/0300793 A1) hereinafter Chen, and in further view of US PG Pub (US 2011/0246155 A1) hereinafter Fitch, et. al.
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product teaches the limitations of Independent Claim 1 above, and Chen further teaches the method for automatically providing an impact index for a product comprising:
- wherein determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables (see at least Chen: ¶ [0071-0074] & ¶ [0168-0173]. Chen teaches that the data annotation engine functions as an interface to guide the annotation of sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts. A corpus of sustainability standards can be collected, with different sustainability standards providing information about impacts and practices in different product categories. Each practice may be mapped on an impact, an impact category, a stage and a sub-stage with benefit giving an explanation to the logic. The data annotation engine functions to map practices/specifications onto an impact area and a work step using the annotation framework/methodology. See also Chen at ¶ [0168]: teaches that various impact areas are assigned weights based on their importance for a particular product category. For example, a first product category may have a significant impact on water, resulting in a higher weight for that impact area for the first product category, whereas a second product category may have an impact on water, but to a much lesser degree, resulting in a lower weight for the “water” impact area for the second product category. In various embodiments, impact areas can be assigned with weights indicative of their importance to a particular product category, and product benefit efficiency scores can be weighted based on impact area weights. See also Chen: ¶ [0169]: Impact areas for a product category can be grouped into one of a plurality of “weight categories.” Which weight category a particular impact area should be assigned to can be determined by first calculating a weight value for each impact area for the product category. See also Chen at Fig. 10 noting that “impact areas are mapped onto UN Sustainable Development Goals” and Chen at ¶ [0071-0074] such as “sustainability standards into a database, automatically mapping practices to product categories and relevant sustainability impacts.”.) and at least one set of attributes (see at least Chen: ¶ [0029] & ¶ [0041] & ¶ [0212].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: wherein determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of mapped variables and the at least one set of attributes, and in further view of Chen, in order to provide analytics and footprint tracking platform to improve reporting and long-term sustainability planning, and organization (e.g., government agencies) may be able to draw meaning from existing meta-data sources (E.g., corporate metadata sources) with machine learning to cross-reference highest impact areas of millions of goods and services based on production-level specifications, attributes, and certifications (see at least Chen: ¶ [0041]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Chen, the results of the combination were predictable.
However, regarding Dependent Claim 16, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product does not explicitly disclose, but Fitch in the analogous art for automatically providing an impact index for a product does disclose the following:
- determining at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0029-0030].), of each attribute in comparison to the other attributes in the plurality of attributes (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0045] & ¶ [0051] & ¶ [0066].);
- determining at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0029-0030].), of each variable within each impact dimension (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0065] & [0145] & Fig. 6.);
- determining at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0029-0030].), of each variable towards each attribute (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0127].).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: determining at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution, of each attribute in comparison to the other attributes in the plurality of attributes & determining at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution, of each variable within each impact dimension & determining at least one of relative contribution and direct contribution, of each variable towards each attribute, and in further view of Fitch, wherein the performance data from real building case studies can be collected and added to the tabulated data sets to weight the mean toward real-life performance. In this instance, the real performance data is used to train or enhance the impact factors and baselines, improving the accuracy of the predicted environmental and cost impact reports (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0054].)
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Fitch, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product does not explicitly disclose, but Fitch in the analogous art for automatically providing an impact index for a product does disclose the following:
- wherein the method further comprises the steps of: determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables and the plurality of attributes (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0054-0056] & Fig. 4. Fitch teaches that continuing to 404, the mean estimates are compared to actual building data to determine differences. Advancing to 406, the mean estimates are weighted based on the determined differences. Moving to 408, the weighted mean estimates are stored in the memory the plurality of unitized baseline factors and the plurality of unitized impact factors. See also Fitch at [0027]: “The term “impact factor” refers to a normalized change, such as a normalized percentage change relative to a baseline or other type of value that is normalized to some easily quantifiable attribute of a building or design (such as the square footage), that might impact energy consumption, costs, return on investment, cash flow, environmental impacts, or other parameters of a proposed building based on the user's design choices for a proposed building.” See also Fitch at ¶ [0127]: “The Impact Factor creation interface includes a menu of model fields (such as “Total Construction Cost” or “Energy Baseline Factor for Office Building in ASHRAE climate zone 2d”). It also includes a menu of math functions to apply a modifier and variable to the selected field (such as “add $1.50 per variable Y” or “multiply by 0.5%”), and yet another menu of variable fields. The administrator builds as many impact factors as are relevant to the particular bundle.”), based on a priority of assigned to each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Fitch: Figs. 12-13 & ¶ [0139]. Fitch notes that the operator selects one or more impact factors associated with particular impact categories and assigns them to a group, assigns a name to the group, and saves them to bundles data store 126 as a new bundle, such as bundle 1210.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Comito / Prieto / Chen method for automatically providing an impact index for a product with the aforementioned teachings of: determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables and the plurality of attributes, based on a priority of assigned to each of the plurality of impact dimensions, and in further view of Fitch, wherein the performance data from real building case studies can be collected and added to the tabulated data sets to weight the mean toward real-life performance. In this instance, the real performance data is used to train or enhance the impact factors and baselines, improving the accuracy of the predicted environmental and cost impact reports (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0054].)
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for automatically providing an impact index for a product, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Fitch, the results of the combination were predictable.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
18. Regarding Dependent Claim 15 has overcome the prior art rejection, however is still rejected over 35 U.S.C. § 101. Additionally, please also note the Claim Objections for Claims 1, 7-11 and 13-18, the minor Specification Objection to the title and the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) rejections for Claims 6-7, 15-16 and 18-23. For Dependent Claim 15, there is no disclosure in the existing prior art or any new art that either teaches and/or discloses the sequence operation of each of these features either individually or in combination relating to:
- identifying and defining each attribute of at least one set of attributes;
- determining a contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another, wherein the contextual relationship comprises a qualitative and quantitative relationships between each of the attribute with another attribute;
- determining a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) through the contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another;
- converting the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix into an initial Reachability Matrix (RM); and
- determining a drive-dependence power or weightage of each attribute dependent on the remaining attributes of the at least one set of attributes, wherein the drive-dependence power or weightage is determined using each driving attribute, dependent attributes, number of dependent attributes, and a relationship between each driving attribute and each dependent attribute.
The closest prior arts are as follows:
1) US PG Pub (US 2014/0040160 A1) hereinafter Comito and (2) US PG Pub (US 2013/0238379 A1) hereinafter Prieto, and (3) US PG Pub (US 2011/0246155 A1) hereinafter Fitch, et. al.
Regarding the Comito reference, Comito teaches or suggests the sequence of operations comprising the following:
- selecting at least one product from a plurality of products provided in a predefined list (see at least Comito: ¶ [0051-0052] & ¶ [0111]. Comito notes that a match between some or all of the sub-classification codes indicates whether the item is comparable to product 180. Having at least a predefined number of matching sub-classification codes of the total number of sub-classification codes determines whether a product is comparable to product 180. A product comparable to product 180 is determined by system 100 referencing a list stored in database 128 of comparable products for product 180. The user is prompted to enter a product identifier 190 for an additional or comparable product. See also Comito at ¶ [0051-0052]: “The user enters “Phillips model 423517” for the same product. The user enters the information by typing it into a data entry field, by speaking it into a microphone on network-enabled device 150, by scanning or photographing the description, or by selecting text in a document, webpage, or other computer file. Product identifying information 192 is an image of product packaging or product 180. For example, a consumer shopping online may select an image of product 180 as viewed on a website or may upload the user's own image of product 180 using network-enabled device 150. An image may be compared with data or images in database 128 to identify product 180.”).
However, Comito specifically, does not teach or suggest the sequence of operations comprising:
- identifying and defining each attribute of at least one set of attributes;
- determining a contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another, wherein the contextual relationship comprises a qualitative and quantitative relationships between each of the attribute with another attribute;
- determining a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) through the contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another;
- converting the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix into an initial Reachability Matrix (RM); and
- determining a drive-dependence power or weightage of each attribute dependent on the remaining attributes of the at least one set of attributes, wherein the drive-dependence power or weightage is determined using each driving attribute, dependent attributes, number of dependent attributes, and a relationship between each driving attribute and each dependent attribute.
Regarding the Prieto reference, Prieto teaches or suggests the sequence of operations comprising the following:
- identifying a plurality of attributes (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0051-0052]. Prieto notes that each of attribute sets 251-257 includes one or more attributes that include an attribute identifier (e.g., a name, GUID, UUID, etc.) and a corresponding value. First, each of attributes 358 includes a name or identifier (e.g., label, GUID, etc.) corresponding to feature within attribute set 351.) related to a plurality of impact dimensions for the at least one product selected (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0042] & ¶ [0053-0057]. Prieto notes that the “material” attribute could include a modeled expected rate at which concrete is consumed during construction at the project site where a corresponding attribute value might include cubic yards of concrete used-to-date calculated from the modeled expected rate. Further, the attribute values could also include an actual value reflecting the real-world consumed amount of concrete. FIG. 4 provides an overview of generating a social bottom line impact, or other bottom line impacts, as a function of the attributes values across the multiple dimensions of attributes set. The social bottom line impact can be generated by modeling the attribute values for the construction project according project model 440.)
- select at least one set of attributes from the plurality of identified attributes for the at least one product selected (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0042-0043] & ¶ [0053-0056] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto notes that a design engineer, possibly at output device 180, can select assembly objects 150 from assembly database 125 and connect the assembly objects 150 together using logical connectors. See also Prieto at ¶ [0042]: Assembly objects 150 could include physical devices; pumps, pipes, values, control units, cable trays, HVAC units, or other devices. Such assembly objects can be obtained from assembly database 125 and instantiated according to the specific requirements for modeling construction project 110. Assembly objects 150 can cover a broad spectrum of assemblies including mechanical assemblies, module assemblies (e.g., modular processing units, HVAC systems, etc.), know-how, assembled data sets, training materials or documents, maintenance documentation, forms or checklists, or other types of assemblies that can be leveraged over the life cycle of construction project 110. See also Prieto at ¶ [0053]: The “material” attribute could include a modeled expected rate at which concrete is consumed during construction at the project site where a corresponding attribute value might include cubic yards of concrete used-to-date calculated from the modeled expected rate. Further, the attribute values could also include an actual value reflecting the real-world consumed amount of concrete. See also Prieto at ¶ [0056]: Consider the example of the “materials” attributes, which has attributes values associated with a “metal” metric during a construction phase, or a “dust” metric related to an EOL demolition of the project site. See also Prieto at ¶ [0012]: “The modeling engine preferably is further configured to generate one or more bottom line impacts, a social bottom line impact for example, as a function of project-specific attribute values across the multiple dimensions of attributes sets. Example bottom line impacts could include financial impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts, or other types of impacts.”);
- map the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables related to each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0030-0036] & ¶ [0046-0050] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto teaches that establish map 160 according to project module 140 where map 160 maps attribute values of attributes sets of assembly objects 150 to at least a social bottom line. Map 160 euphemistically represents a module capable of operating on project model 140 to simulate or model construction project 110 to arrive at a social bottom line. For example, map 160 could simply be project model 140 where the attributes values within the attributes sets of assembly objects 150 could be indicative of an impact on one or more facets of a social bottom line (e.g., good will, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, job creation, family or local economic impacts, community involvement or development, cultural impact, religious implications, etc.). Map 160 could then be a sum of the values for each facet across each dimension of assembly objects. Another example of map 160 could include a simulation where map 160 applies time-based rules across project model 140. See also Prieto at ¶ [0012]: Example bottom line impacts could include financial impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts, or other types of impacts. See also Prieto at ¶ [0030]: “Expanded set of component attributes can relate to second (environmental) and third (social) bottom lines such as energy, water, greenhouse gases, waste, labor, various social metrics, other.” See also Prieto at ¶ [0050]: Seven dimensions are presented within assembly object 250, one should appreciate that the attribute sets could include at least four dimensions of attributes sets, five dimensions of attributes, six dimensions of attributes, seven dimensions of attributes, or more dimensions of attribute sets. See also Prieto at Fig. 4 noting the “mapping the at least one set of attributes selected to a plurality of variables” illustrated at map 460 shown at Fig. 4 of Prieto.), wherein the plurality of variables comprise a plurality of sustainability factors associated with the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Prieto: Figs. 2-4 & ¶ [0046] & ¶ [0061-0062]. Prieto teaches that the social bottom line impact can include projected social impact 495 that represents a projection of the social bottom line impact from an up-to-date actual social impact 493 where the projection is generated via project model 440 based on the real-world project data and actual social impact 493 applied to product model 440. Thus, projected social impact 495 could include a real-time updated or course corrected representation of the impact. See also Prieto at ¶ [0008]: Prieto teaches indicating that a triple bottom line for measuring success of a project can include taking into account environmental, financial, and social performance.), each variable is mapped with one or more relevant attributes of the selected product (see at least Prieto: ¶ [0026-0030] & ¶ [0053-0056] & Figs. 2-4. Prieto teaches that the expanded set of component attributes can relate to second (environmental) and third (social) bottom lines such as energy, water, greenhouse gases, waste, labor, various social metrics, other. Also that “Project execution model facilitates process status tracking or predictive linkages that support re-sequencing of construction for late delivery of equipment, materials and importantly the means of construction”. See also Prieto at ¶ [0053-0054]: For example, the “material” attribute could include a modeled expected rate at which concrete is consumed during construction at the project site where a corresponding attribute value might include cubic yards of concrete used-to-date calculated from the modeled expected rate. Further, the attribute values could also include an actual value reflecting the real-world consumed amount of concrete. Attributes 358 preferably include properties that directly (i.e., a direct contribution to the bottom-line impact) or indirectly (i.e., used to calculate the bottom-line impact with a project model) relate to a bottom-line impact. In the example show, some of attributes 358 comprises social bottom line properties. See also Prieto at ¶ [0055-0056]: Consider the example of the “materials” attributes, which has attributes values associated with a “metal” metric during a construction phase, or a “dust” metric related to an EOL demolition of the project site. Such metrics lack direct impact on a social bottom line. However, the project model can leverage such information to derive a social bottom line to one or more modeled systems. Consider social bottom line impacts that reflect community involvement or development. The metal metrics or dust/debris removal metric can be used to recommend development of local industries, which increase the community involvement or development in general, not just with the project. Thus, the project model can be considered to include modules configured to or programmed to derive social bottom line impacts from the attribute values across the life cycle of the construction project.).
However, Prieto specifically, does not teach or suggest the sequence of operations comprising:
- identifying and defining each attribute of at least one set of attributes;
- determining a contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another, wherein the contextual relationship comprises a qualitative and quantitative relationships between each of the attribute with another attribute;
- determining a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) through the contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another;
- converting the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix into an initial Reachability Matrix (RM); and
- determining a drive-dependence power or weightage of each attribute dependent on the remaining attributes of the at least one set of attributes, wherein the drive-dependence power or weightage is determined using each driving attribute, dependent attributes, number of dependent attributes, and a relationship between each driving attribute and each dependent attribute.
Regarding the Fitch reference, Fitch teaches or suggests the sequence of operations comprising the following:
- wherein the method further comprises the steps of: determining a plurality of weightages for the plurality of variables and the plurality of attributes (see at least Fitch: ¶ [0054-0056] & Fig. 4. Fitch teaches that continuing to 404, the mean estimates are compared to actual building data to determine differences. Advancing to 406, the mean estimates are weighted based on the determined differences. Moving to 408, the weighted mean estimates are stored in the memory the plurality of unitized baseline factors and the plurality of unitized impact factors. See also Fitch at [0027]: “The term “impact factor” refers to a normalized change, such as a normalized percentage change relative to a baseline or other type of value that is normalized to some easily quantifiable attribute of a building or design (such as the square footage), that might impact energy consumption, costs, return on investment, cash flow, environmental impacts, or other parameters of a proposed building based on the user's design choices for a proposed building.” See also Fitch at ¶ [0127]: “The Impact Factor creation interface includes a menu of model fields (such as “Total Construction Cost” or “Energy Baseline Factor for Office Building in ASHRAE climate zone 2d”). It also includes a menu of math functions to apply a modifier and variable to the selected field (such as “add $1.50 per variable Y” or “multiply by 0.5%”), and yet another menu of variable fields. The administrator builds as many impact factors as are relevant to the particular bundle.”), based on a priority of assigned to each of the plurality of impact dimensions (see at least Fitch: Figs. 12-13 & ¶ [0139]. Fitch notes that the operator selects one or more impact factors associated with particular impact categories and assigns them to a group, assigns a name to the group, and saves them to bundles data store 126 as a new bundle, such as bundle 1210.)
However, Fitch specifically, does not teach or suggest the sequence of operations comprising:
- identifying and defining each attribute of at least one set of attributes;
- determining a contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another, wherein the contextual relationship comprises a qualitative and quantitative relationships between each of the attribute with another attribute;
- determining a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) through the contextual relationship between each of the attribute with another;
- converting the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix into an initial Reachability Matrix (RM); and
- determining a drive-dependence power or weightage of each attribute dependent on the remaining attributes of the at least one set of attributes, wherein the drive-dependence power or weightage is determined using each driving attribute, dependent attributes, number of dependent attributes, and a relationship between each driving attribute and each dependent attribute.
Therefore, when taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor do the available art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modification would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 PM EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625