DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 24 are presented for examination. Claims 10 - 17, and 21 - 23 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Switzerland on September 22, 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CH 1198/20 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The filing of the document on February 16, 2023 is a copy of a certified copy, but does not satisfy the requirement in 37 CFR 1.55(g) for a certified copy, see MPEP 215 (II).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Pages 6 and 39 recite references that were not disclosed in a filed information disclosure statement. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to because FIGS. 4, 7, 9, 12,18, 19D, 20, and 21 are blurry and difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Elements “21i”, “302i”, and “61i” are not disclosed in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites “FIG. 1” in line 15, but it is recommended to remove the term from the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17, line 2 recites “include the European Union (EU)”, but it is recommended the phrase recites “include European Union (EU)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17, lines 2 - 3 recite “comprises all production facilities including those of suppliers”, but it is recommended the phrase recites “comprises all production facilities including facilities of suppliers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 - 17, 21 and 22 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.
Claim 10 lacks antecedent basis for “based on the NACE Rev2” (Claim 10, line 2).
Dependent claims 11 - 14 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 10.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “based on NACE Rev2”.
Claim 11 recites “slight”, “moderate”, and “high”. However, it is unclear if these words in parenthesis are part of the claim or not. It is unclear if these words in quotations are part of the claim, and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 12 - 14 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 11.
Suggested language: Amend the claim to provide clarification for the words in quotation.
Claim 13 recites “value-added output in % of GDP”. However, it is unclear if this phrase in quotations is part of the claim or not. The words in parenthesis are unclear whether they are part of the claim or not, and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Suggested language: Amend the claim to provide clarification for the words in quotation.
Claim 13 recites “value-added output in % of GDP”, but it is unclear in the claim what “GDP” is in reference to. The recitation of “GDP” in the claim is unclear, and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite what “GDP” stands for, with support from the specification.
Claim 15 recites “spatial levels as NUTS-II”. However, it is unclear what “NUTS-II” is in reference to. The phrase is unclear due to “NUTS-II”, and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 16 and 17 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 15.
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite what “NUTS-II” stands for, with support from the specification.
Claim 21 lacks antecedent basis for “based on the NACE classification” (line 3).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “based on NACE classification”.
Claim 22 recites “enterprise and benchmarking compared to others”, but it is unclear what or who are the “others”. The phrase unclear due to the term “others”, and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claim 23 is rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1 and 24: The prior art of Kussul et al. (“Resilience Aspects in the Sensor Web Infrastructure for Natural Disaster Monitoring and Risk Assessment Based on Earth Observation Data”) discloses Earth Observation data and Infrastructure for disaster monitoring and risk assessment, and monitoring floods which affects the environment, Baumgartner (“The Insurance Value of Biodiversity in the Provision of Ecosystem Services”) discloses using an index to measure the level of biodiversity and ecosystem generating a valuable ecosystem service, an insurance value associated with biodiversity, and Zoran et al. (“Forest Lang Cover Phenologies and Their Relation to Climatic Variables in a Carpathian Mountains Region”) discloses a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NVDI) to calculate forest cover dynamics, forest ecosystem processes, and remote sensing, including satellites for biodiversity monitoring and conservation.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Kussel, Baumgartner, and Zoran, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses:
using average values of each BES indicators to define subsectors and measured dependency of either a production output or production process of individual BES indices measured by assigned correlation measuring indices, and obtaining measured probability of occurrence values based on damage events or output of reduced production using measured BES index values associated with weighted production outputs and production processes using an average value of correlated measuring indices of individual parametrized indicators of BES as well as an aggregated dependence of all BES indicators in the total BES index, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 2 - 23 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 1, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
March 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights