DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
4/20/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 11, and 16 were amended. Claims 5, 15, and 20 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are new. Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Claim objections have been withdrawn. Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 7-8 that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity because claim 1 recites a device-driven technical process in which electronic information is processed by an AI model, an item status is determined, access instructions are compiled for a network resource based on that item status, and those instructions are executed to automatically manipulate read and write access to the electronic information of the item.Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Incorporating the use of a device and an AI model compiling and executing instructions does not preclude the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. The claimed additional elements are considered individually and in combination with the limitations directed to the abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong 2. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). This is characterized by the claimed steps to analyze item information based on at least certifications and materials to determine an item status and curating a display of the item based on the item status, which are commercial interactions. The specification at [0002]-[0003] explains the items may be consumer or commercial products, goods, or assets, the information may be hosted on an online marketplace, product accessibility and display are contingent on the product evaluation, an material quality, popularity, market trends, and customer reviews can affect marketplace evaluation.
Applicant argues on p. 8-9 that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because claim 1 requires that the determined item status be used to compile access instructions for hosting and controlling access to the item on a network resource, and further requires execution of those compiled instructions such that read and write access to the electronic information of the item is automatically manipulated. In other words, the claim applies the output of the AI analysis to govern access to electronic information on a network resource. That is a concrete application of the claimed processing, not an abstract result.Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the claimed additional elements such as “a device; compiling, by the device, based on the item status, access instructions for hosting and controlling access to the item on a network resource; and executing, by the device, the compiled access instructions to control access to the item on the network resource, the execution of the compiled access instructions comprising automatically manipulating read and write access to the electronic information of the item” recite standard components performing their generic functions implemented for the item analyses. The alleged integration is an improvement to the abstract analysis for a compliance and marketplace listing decision. The claims do not recite an improvement to the function of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claims merely use computers as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant argues on p. 9 that claim 1 is not limited to generic receipt of data or generic presentation of information. Rather, Claim 1 recites a particular ordered combination in which electronic information related to an item is identified, analyzed with an AI model, used to determine CERT information, material information, and an item status, then used to compile access instructions for hosting and controlling access to the item on a network resource, and finally used through execution of those access instructions to automatically manipulate read and write access to the electronic information of the item. That combination confines the claimed subject matter to a specific network-based implementation in which AI-derived status information is used to control access to electronic information. The present record therefore supports that Claim 1 recites a concrete access-control implementation, not merely generic data gathering and display.Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Applicant’s specification states in [0003] that the disclosed framework can employ current AI/ML techniques, supporting that the AI model is applied generically. Applicant’s specification also describes in [0002] that the “network resource” can be a website, portal, and/or any other type of network-based online marketplace,” further supporting that the device, AI technique, and network environment are conventional tools used according to their ordinary functions. The ordered combination of collecting product certification and material information, using an AI technique to evaluate compliance and product attributes, determine an overall product status, determine whether the product information should be listed or accessible in an online marketplace, and implementing that determination merely amounts to a computer automated compliance and marketplace administration workflow. None of the claim limitations supply an inventive concept individual or as an ordered combination.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the newly cited Balinsky reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, device, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium). Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-4, 6-10, 21 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 11-14, 22 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “device”). Claims 16-19, 23 are directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 11 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting identifying, by …, electronic information related to an item, the information comprising certification (CERT) data and material data related to the item; analyzing, via … executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model, the electronic information; determining, by …, based on the AI analysis of the CERT data, CERT information for the item, CERT information indicating a status of at least one certification related to a manufacture of the item; determining, by …, based on the AI analysis of the material data, material information for the item, the material information indicating a status of a type of at least one material constituting the item; determining, by …, an item status for the item based on AI analysis of the CERT information and the material information; […] (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). The claims recite steps to analyze item information based on at least certifications and materials to determine an item status and curating a display of the item based on the item status, which are commercial interactions. It is understood that the claimed steps aim to ensure regulatory compliance and promote sustainable, quality, eco-friendly, and durable choices through the claimed assessment and display curation (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]-[0003]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of “certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions” common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., a “unified network infrastructure” for assessing item information and dynamically curating and displaying items).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a device; compiling, by the device, based on the item status, access instructions for hosting and controlling access to the item on a network resource; and executing, by the device, the compiled access instructions to control access to the item on the network resource, the execution of the compiled access instructions comprising automatically manipulating read and write access to the electronic information of the item) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)). The use of a device, network, and network resource are merely employed to link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, 17-19, and 21-23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “identifying” item information, “analyzing” the item information, “determining” CERT information, “determining” material information, “determining” an item status, “compiling” access instructions, and “executing” the instructions to control access (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Tabaddor et al., US 20210334699 A1, cite no. 1 from IDS filed 3/19/2025, hereinafter Tabaddor, in view of
Zhu et al., US 20230089850 A1, cite no. 3 from IDS filed 3/19/2025, hereinafter Zhu, in view of
Balinsky et al., US 20120278631 A1, hereinafter Balinsky. As per,
Claims 1, 11, 16
Tabaddor teaches
A method comprising: /
A device comprising: a processor configured to: /
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions that when executed by a device, perform a method comprising: (Tabaddor [0036])
identifying, by a device, electronic information related to an item, the electronic information comprising certification (CERT) data and material data related to the item; (Tabaddor [0021] “the data source(s) 106 may compile, store, or otherwise access information associated with product tests, standards, certifications, requirements, and/or the like;” [0023] “the training dataset 116 may indicate characteristics, dimensions, materials, compositions, and/or qualities of the tested products” note the collection of certification data and material data related to a product)
analyzing, via the device executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model, the electronic information; (Tabaddor [0040] “the product test predictor application 160 may analyze or process the data 151 using the machine learning model to generate a set of output values” note the use of the ML model to analyze the product data)
determining, by the device, based on the AI analysis of the CERT data, CERT information for the item, CERT information indicating a status of at least one certification related to a manufacture of the item; (Tabaddor [0015] “he systems and methods may use a machine learning model to predict whether a sample of a product would “pass” a given product test (or otherwise be certified according to the product test).” Note the ML analysis to determine a certification status; [0016] “the term “product test” may refer to any standard, certification, test, or the like that is created or specified by an entity, agency, governing body, or the like, where each product test may be applicable to a certain type, kind, size, or portion of physical product that may be used in various applications (e.g., construction, consumer goods, manufacturing, maintenance, etc.).” note the certification related to a manufacture of the product)
determining, by the device, based on the AI analysis of the material data, material information for the item, the material information indicating a status of a type of at least one material constituting the item; (Tabaddor [0023] “For example, the portion of the training dataset 116 for NFPA 262 may include dimensions and compositions of the tested product specimens;” Note the compositions of the product; [0026] “The set of input data may include at least a portion of the parameters or characteristics that are included in the training dataset 116 (e.g., product characteristics, dimensions, materials, compositions, and/or qualities, and any output(s) of the product test on a given product)” note the input data containing the product materials and compositions; [0027] “After receipt of the set of input data, the server computer 115 may input the set of input data into the applicable machine learning model, and generate a set of outputs that may predict an output of a given product tested according to the product test used to certify the given product” note the outputs of the ML model corresponding to the status of a type of at least one material)
determining, by the device, an item status for the item based on AI analysis of the CERT information and the material information; (Tabaddor [0027] “For example, a set of outputs generated using a machine learning model associated with NFPA 262 may include, for a small-scale plenum cable used to generate the set of inputs, the maximum peak optical density, the average optical density, and the maximum flame spread distance for the small-scale plenum cable. Thus, the server computer 115 (or another component) may examine the set of outputs to predict whether the product used to generate the set of inputs would pass the applicable product test;” [0028] “For example, the server computer 115 may compare the maximum peak optical density, the average optical density, and the maximum flame spread distance for the small-scale plenum cable as output by the machine learning model may be compared to the maximum peak optical density of 0.5 or less, the average optical density of 0.15 or less, and the maximum flame spread distance of 1.52 m (5 ft) or less, as specified by NFPA 262” note the determination of the product status based on the ML model analysis of the certification information (NFPA 262 in this example) and material information)
[…];
[…].
Tabaddor does not explicitly teach, Zhu however in the analogous art of product analyses teaches
[…] based on the item status, […]; and (Zhu fig. 4; [0065] “FIG. 4 illustrates an online shopping GUI based on a real-time environmental impact scoring system. As shown, an online marketplace 400 (e.g., online store) may be displayed on an online shopper's computing device display (e.g., smartphone) as a listing of products and their calculated environmental impact score.” Note the dynamic display of items based on their status)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tabaddor’s AI-based item testing to include dynamically displaying an item’s status based on the analysis in view of Zhu in an effort to provide consumers with unbiased product assessments (see Zhu ¶ [0010] & MPEP 2143G).
Tabaddor / Zhu do not explicitly teach, Balinsky however in the analogous art of access control teaches
compiling, by the device, […], access instructions for hosting and controlling access to the item on a network resource; and (Balinsky [0015] “This scenario may result in multiple map-files for a single participant because one map-file is generated that will provide the access key that corresponds to the particular participant at each particular workflow step;” [0020] “The various components of the system 20 enable … to assign desired access control to each participant … generate, encrypt and sign individual map-files for each workflow participant for each workflow step;” [0050] “the system 20 described herein may enable the PPCDs 12 to be uploaded and downloaded, or to be shared via a shared drive or a cloud computing network” note the system generating and assembling map files with access controls)
executing, by the device, the compiled access instructions to control access to the item on the network resource, the execution of the compiled access instructions comprising automatically manipulating read and write access to the electronic information of the item. (Balinsky [0012] “The individual computing systems run one or more applications that enable the participants to obtain access to item(s);” [0036] “Read and write (i.e., modify) access requires all four keys E, D, S, and V. When modify access is given, the authenticity of a part A, B, . . . , N is verified using V, and the part A, B, . . . , N is then decrypted using D, modified as needed, encrypted using E and then signed using S” note the execution of the application and applying the access rules for reading and writing access to electronic information)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tabaddor’s AI-based item testing and Zhu’s item statuses to include compiling and executing instructions for controlled access to electronic information in view of Balinsky in an effort to provide a secured collaborative authoring tool (see Balinsky ¶ [0019] & MPEP 2143G).
Claims 2, 12, 17
Tabaddor / Balinsky do not explicitly teach, Zhu however in the analogous art of product analyses teaches
determining, based on the material data, a type of the materials of the item, the type of the materials corresponding to at least one of a preferred material (PM) and exclusionary material (EM), wherein the material information determination is based on the type of materials of the item. (Zhu [0059] “For example, sustainably farmed products may be highly ranked as positive environmental impact components, while petroleum-based products may be ranked low” note the positive components corresponding to preferred material and negative/low components corresponding to exclusionary material)
The rationales/motivations to combine Tabaddor / Balinsky with Zhu persists.
Claims 3, 13, 18
Tabaddor / Balinsky do not explicitly teach, Zhu however in the analogous art of product analyses teaches
determining a hierarchical score for the item, the hierarchical score being based on a determined base score for a type of PM material, wherein the hierarchical score increases based on the type of PM material as it relates to at least one of sustainability, ethical manufacturing and responsible consumption. (Zhu fig. 3 noting the product scoring, ranking, and display of ranked products; [0027] a product score, a packaging score and a shipping method score (FIG. 3) are individually generated to produce scores for each of these components. Subsequently, these individual scores are aggregated (e.g., averaged, added, mean, etc.) to create an overall product score;” [0059] “A correlation to positive environmental impact components may positively affect a score … sustainably farmed products may be highly ranked as positive environmental impact components, while petroleum-based products may be ranked low”)
The rationales/motivations to combine Tabaddor / Balinsky with Zhu persists.
Claims 4, 14, 19
Tabaddor / Balinsky do not explicitly teach, Zhu however in the analogous art of product analyses teaches
wherein the hierarchical score is further based on a type of the EM material. (Zhu [0059] “a correlation to negative environmental impact components may negatively affect a score … petroleum-based products may be ranked low;” [0060] “plastic packaging may be ranked low”)
The rationales/motivations to combine Tabaddor / Balinsky with Zhu persists.
Claim 6
Tabaddor teaches
wherein the CERT data comprises information related to certifications, standards, accreditation, conformity assurance and validations of the item, […] (Tabaddor [0016] “the term “product test” may refer to any standard, certification, test, or the like that is created or specified by an entity, agency, governing body, or the like, where each product test may be applicable to a certain type, kind, size, or portion of physical product that may be used in various applications (e.g., construction, consumer goods, manufacturing, maintenance, etc.).”)
Tabaddor / Balinsky do not explicitly teach, Zhu however in the analogous art of product analyses teaches
[…] wherein the CERT data further comprises social attributes, environmental attributes, governance attributes, origin attributes and quality attributes (SEQ attributes) of the item, wherein the CERT information is based at least on the SEQ attributes, wherein the SEQ attributes are identified via analysis of the CERT data via the AI model. (Zhu [0015] “the technology disclosed herein computes real-time scoring on a number of metrics (e.g., product environmental impact, packaging environmental impact, shipping environmental impact, manufacturer reputation, carbon footprint calculation, etc.). These metrics may be derived from a number of data sources, such as SKU-level product detail discovery, social media on recent events reflecting a manufacturer's reputation, verification information based on industry organization recognition or government certification (e.g., fair trade, USDA, blockchain data on supply chain, etc.), environmental impact score databases capturing previous assessments for existing or known products, etc.”)
The rationales/motivations to combine Tabaddor / Balinsky with Zhu persists.
Claim 7
Tabaddor teaches
wherein the CERT information, material information and item status comprise scoring values. (Tabaddor [0044] “The set of raw data 205 may further identify a set of results or outputs of an applicable large-scale product test and a small-scale product test. In particular, the set of outputs may be numeric and/or Boolean values or outputs indicating how a product performed”)
Claim 8
Tabaddor teaches
wherein the electronic information further comprises item data related to at least one of characteristics of the item, item type, item size, item shape, item materials, item provider and item location. (Tabaddor [0044] “ the set of raw data 205 may identify products, characteristics of the products (e.g., physical dimensions), composition of the products (i.e., physical materials that make up the products), design of the products (i.e., information indicating how the products are structured), and/or similar information”)
Claim 9
Tabaddor / Balinsky do not explicitly teach, Zhu however in the analogous art of product analyses teaches
wherein the network resource is a webpage associated with a third party provider. (Zhu [0014] “locate and analyze customer review data on environmental impact from merchant sites, consumer sites or third party review sites;” [0016] “the technology disclosed herein provides consumers with several decision aid metrics, such as a consumer product environmental impact assessment” note the webpage associated with a third party provider)
The rationales/motivations to combine Tabaddor / Balinsky with Zhu persists.
Claim 10
Tabaddor teaches
wherein the item is a real-world or digital item provided by a third party entity. (Tabaddor [0045] note the example of the cable corresponding to a real-world item)
Claims 21, 22, 23
Tabaddor / Balinsky do not explicitly teach, Zhu however in the analogous art of product analyses teaches
wherein the identification of the electronic information related to the item comprises scraping, by the device, another network resource to retrieve the electronic information. (Zhu [0021] “Environmental impact detector 110 may obtain label imagery, such as certification labels 104 or SKU/UPS labels, through web site imagery, consumer generated imagery, or by imagery provided by a product manufacturer or distributer, to name a few possible sources;” [0023] “These regulatory compliance documents may then be scraped for specific product or manufacturer compliance issues” note the retrieval of product and certification information by scraping website linked product information and regulatory compliance documents)
The rationales/motivations to combine Tabaddor / Balinsky with Zhu persists.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 7092898 B1: A method for developing ratings of the environmental sensitivity of vehicles and vehicle manufacturers and for communicating such ratings to consumers, manufacturers and other interested parties. The method utilizes the Internet for acquiring data and disseminating information and identifies vehicles available on the market to consumers with an environmental performance rating based upon a rating algorithm. Trophies are awarded in recognition of the top rated vehicles and manufacturers in regard to environmental sensitivity. The rating system and the identification of the award winners is communicated to consumers and to stake-holders such as the manufacturers, special interest groups and governmental agencies.
WO 2012/068056 A1: Embodiments consistent with this disclosure provide systems and methods for analyzing manufactured products and more particularly, for combining laboratory analysis with life cycle analysis to assess manufactured products with respect to the products' impact on the environment. Systems and methods consistent with this disclosure may produce assessment results in the form of an information label, score, report, or rating, characterizing the environmental impact of a product over its life cycle.
Indrawan et al., Digital Marketplace Design & Development for Creative Recycle Product, 2023: The increasing issue of recycling and the lack of consideration for the end-of-life treatment of synthetic polymers have led to significant environmental and health concerns. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviors, such as recycling, is crucial to address this issue. Leveraging the widespread use of the internet. This research project proposed to make a web based marketplace application to open business opportunities for waste craftsmen, by showcasing and selling their work through a dedicated marketplace. This project aligns with previous research highlighting the effectiveness of web- based applications in increasing recycling behaviors and awareness. This research aims to reduce waste accumulation in Indonesia while increasing the value and appreciation of recycled materials as art pieces or practical tools, also by helping economic growth for every craftsmen that place their product in out website. In conclusion, this research contributes to the efforts of promoting recycling, raising awareness about waste management, and supporting waste craftsmen.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
