Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 01/30/2026.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 01/30/2026, have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following non-final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 8-14 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
On pages 8-11 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the amended independent claims do not recite an abstract idea. In particular, the Applicant argues that the claims do not recite mental processes or business relations, and that the claims address particular “computer-related problems by using a transactional framework for propagating and verifying sustainability data through transfer request messages” (pg. 9), and “improve the reliability and transparency of ESG data propagation in supply chains” (pg. 11).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims, as currently drafted, do not recite an abstract idea and that the claims reflect a technical improvement to a technical field. The Examiner notes “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The independent claims, as currently drafted, recite steps for collecting transfer request messages associated with the conveyance of items and including sustainability data, collecting/obtaining item composite sustainability data to be included in a second transfer request message, verifying composite sustainability data by determining that it includes portions of first sustainability data and second item production sustainability data, and sending a second transfer request message including the item composite sustainability data to a third entity. These claim features, as currently drafted, are recited at a high level of generality such that a human using mental steps would be capable of performing them. In particular, a human would be capable of collecting information (i.e., collecting the transfer request messages including sustainability data and obtaining item composite sustainability data), analyzing sustainability data to identify whether portions of particular data are included, and displaying information (i.e., the second transfer request) with the aid of pen and paper. Furthermore, the claim features directed towards “verify[ing] that the second item composite sustainability data is within a reference range associated with the production category” (see claim 5) are similarly recited at a high level of generality such that a human using mental steps would be capable of performing them using observation and mental evaluation.
The amended independent claims similarly recite a “first resource management system”, “second resource management system”, and “third-party system”. As currently drafted, these various systems are recited as generic computer tools being utilized their ordinary capacity to perform the mental process discussed above. In particular, these systems are merely recited as computer tools to receive and transmit information (i.e., first/second transfer request messages), which are ordinary functions of a computer. The Examiner notes, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the implementation of a first/second management system and third-party system that merely serve as generic computers to receive/transmit information cannot be considered additional elements that provide a technical improvement to the technical field of “data propagation” because they are merely recited as generic computer tools executing ordinary computer functions to automatically perform the mental process of collecting/displaying information.
On pages 11-12 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and that “the claims apply the concept of verifying and transmitting sustainability data in a specific, structured, and technologically meaningful way that is deeply rooted in the operation of a computer system” (pg. 11). Moreover, the Applicant argues the claim “features are not generic computer functions. The features represent a specific application of computing technology to solve a real-world problem: efficient propagation of sustainability data through resource management systems of a supply chain” (pg. 12).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims, as currently drafted, recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed further above, the recited computer tools are merely being utilized in their ordinary capacity to apply the recited abstract idea and, as such, are not considered to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the recited functions of the computer systems (i.e., first resource management system, second resource management system, and third-party system) involve receiving and transmitting information, which merely demonstrate the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity. See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Furthermore, the claim steps directed towards verifying the composite sustainability data and determining a trust score associated with the composite sustainability data are recited at a high level of generality such that a human using mental steps would be capable of performing them. In particular, determining that a set of data includes portions of other sets of data and generally “determin[ing] a trust score… based on the verification of the second item composite sustainability data” (see claim 2) could be practically performed by a human using observation and mental evaluation. Thus, the additional elements (i.e., a processor) which are recited as performing these claim functions merely serve as generic computer tools to apply the abstract idea. Furthermore, although the use of the recited computer tools may provide “efficient propagation of sustainability data through resource management systems of a supply chain”, the Examiner notes “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
On pages 13-14 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. In particular, the Applicant argues the “inventive concepts at least lies in the verification and generation of a composite sustainability data structure that reflects both upstream and production-specific ESG data” (pg. 13), the features “reflect a specific and structured approach to ensuring ESG data integrity” (pg. 14), and “the ordered combination of these elements (e.g., structured verification, composite data generation, trust scoring, and conditional propagation) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing information” (pg. 14).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed further above, the recited computer tools of the independent claims are merely being utilized in their ordinary capacity to apply the recited abstract idea. In particular, the recited functions of the computer systems (i.e., first resource management system, second resource management system, and third-party system) involve receiving and transmitting information, which are ordinary capacities of a computer. As such, the recited additional elements of the independent claims cannot be considered to provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner notes “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Furthermore, as discussed further above, the claim features directed towards verifying item composite sustainability data, determining a trust score associated with the item composite sustainability data based on the verification, and verifying that the item composite sustainability data is within a reference range associated with a production category are considered to be a part of the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, these claim features cannot be considered as additional elements that provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 14-17 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are considered to be persuasive.
On pages 14-17 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the features of the amended independent claims. In view of the amendments,
the independent claims and their dependents are found to overcome the prior art of record. The Examiner has provided a detailed explanation of why the claims are found to overcome the pertinent prior art of record on page 17 herein.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-14 are directed to a machine (“a computer system”), and claims 15-19 are directed to a process (“a computer-implemented method”), and claim 20 is directed to a manufacture (“a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Thus, claims 1-20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receive a first transfer request message transmitted from [..] a first entity to […] a second entity and associated with a conveyance of a first item from the first entity to the second entity, the first transfer request message including first sustainability data associated with the first item, the first item being a production input of a second item;
Obtain second item composite sustainability data, the second item composite sustainability data to be included in a second transfer request message transmitted from the second […] to a […] a third entity and associated with a conveyance of a second item from the second entity to the third entity;
Verify the second item composite sustainability data by determining that the second item composite sustainability data include at least a portion of the first sustainability data and second item production sustainability data; and
Send the second transfer request message to the third-party […], the second transfer request message including the second item composite sustainability data.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-14, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of the information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of business relations and marketing behaviors. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0002] and ¶ [0106]-¶ [0108].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “computer system”, “processor”, “memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions, that when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to [...]”, “first resource management system”, “second resource management system”, “third-party system”, and steps for transmitting information between computer systems (i.e., sending and receiving first/second transfer request messages). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 15, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receiving a first transfer request message transmitted from […] a first entity to […] a second entity and associated with a conveyance of a first item from the first entity to the second entity, the first transfer request message including first sustainability data associated with the first item, the first item being a production input of a second item;
Obtaining second item composite sustainability data, the second item composite sustainability data to be included in a second transfer request message transmitted from the second […] to a […] third entity and associated with a conveyance of a second item from the second entity to the third entity;
Verifying the second item composite sustainability data by determining that the second item composite sustainability data include at least a portion of the first sustainability data and second item production sustainability data; and
Sending the second transfer request message […], the second transfer request message including the second item composite sustainability data.
Therefore, claims 15 and 16-19, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations of claim 15 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of the information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations of claim 15 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of business relations and marketing behaviors. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0002] and ¶ [0106]-¶ [0108].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “computer-implemented method”, “first resource management system”, “second resource management system”, “third-party system”, and steps for transmitting information between computer systems (i.e., sending and receiving first/second transfer request messages). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 20, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receive a first transfer request message transmitted from […] a first entity to […] a second entity and associated with a conveyance of a first item from a first entity to a second entity, the first transfer request message including first sustainability data associated with the first item, the first item being a production input of a second item;
Obtain second item composite sustainability data, the second item composite sustainability data to be included in a second transfer request message transmitted from the second […] to a […] third entity and associated with a conveyance of a second item from the second entity to a third entity;
Verify the second item composite sustainability data by determining that the second item composite sustainability data include at least a portion of the first sustainability data and second item production sustainability data; and
Send the second transfer request message […], the second transfer request message including the second item composite sustainability data.
Therefore, claim 20 recites concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations of claim 20 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of the information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations of claim 20 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of business relations and marketing behaviors. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0002] and ¶ [0106]-¶ [0108].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configured a processor to [..]”, “first resource management system”, “second resource management system”, “third-party system”, and steps for transmitting information between computer systems (i.e., sending and receiving first/second transfer request messages). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites steps for evaluating information and displaying information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 3 recites steps for evaluating information and displaying information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps to “provide to a client device associated with the third entity, user interface data causing the client device to display a user interface that provides for an initiation of the sending of a response to the second transfer request message” and “provide, to the client device, the […] data”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 4 further defines the collected information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 5 further describes evaluating information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 6 further describes evaluating information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 7 further describes collecting information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps for “providing, to a client device associated with the second entity, user interface fata causing the client device to display a user interface that provides for input of the second item composite sustainability data”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 8 further defines the collected/displayed data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 9 further describes collecting and evaluating data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 10 further describes collecting and evaluating data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 11 further defines the collected information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 12 further defines the collected information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1 and 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 13 further described collecting/displaying information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps to ”provide, to an e-commerce provider, via an application programming interface (API), the second item composite sustainability data […]”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 14 further described collecting/displaying information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps to “provide the […] data to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 16 recites steps for evaluating information and displaying information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 15 from which the claim depends.
Claim 17 recites steps for evaluating information and displaying information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps to “provide to a client device associated with the third entity, user interface data causing the client device to display a user interface that provides for an initiation of the sending of a response to the second transfer request message” and “provide, to the client device, the […] data”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 18 further defines the collected information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 15 from which the claim depends.
Claim 19 further describes evaluating information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 15 from which the claim depends.
Examiner Notes
Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 have been found to overcome the cited art of record. Further, claims 2-14 and 16-19 by virtue of dependence, recite the same limitations as claims 1, 15, and 20 that overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 1, 15, and 20 being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of independent claims 1, 15, and 20. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Aurongzeb U.S. Publication No. 2024/0028599;
Freier et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0289911;
Umay WO2023096691A1;
Thorman et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0351299;
Aurongzeb discloses a system that is configured to gather and validate data from multiple manufacturers in a supply chain for a final product and report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across the supply chain attributable to the final product to end users. The system may gather and verify information for determination of GHG emissions by each entity within the supply chain and determine which portion is attributable to manufacture and transportation. Furthermore, the system determines GHG emissions occurring at various stages within the manufacturing supply chain for a final product, e.g., during raw material extraction, transport of raw materials, subcomponent manufacture, transportation of subcomponents, end product manufacture, and transport of end products. The GHG emission values may be determined simultaneously with a report request from the system. Aurongzeb, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 20. In particular, Aurongzeb does not teach or suggest the claim steps for receiving a first transfer request message that is transmitted from a first system/first entity to a second system/second entity and associated with the conveyance of a first item from the first entity to the second entity, where the first transfer request message includes the first sustainability data associated with the first item that is a production input of a second item. Furthermore, Aurongzeb does not teach or suggest the claim steps for obtaining item composite sustainability data that is to be included in a second transfer request message transmitted from the second system/second entity to a third-party system/third entity associated with the conveyance of the second item from the second entity to the third entity.
Freier discloses a system configured to collect carbon emission data for a manufactured product incorporating multiple sub-products, including transportation of raw resources, processing of the resources, delivery of finished products to a next manufacturer who may incorporate that manufactured item in a further product. The system is further configured to communicate requests directly to suppliers for carbon emission data. Freier, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 20. In particular, Freier does not teach or suggest the claim steps for receiving a first transfer request message that is transmitted from a first system/first entity to a second system/second entity and associated with the conveyance of a first item from the first entity to the second entity, where the first transfer request message includes the first sustainability data associated with the first item that is a production input of a second item. Furthermore, Freier does not teach or suggest the claim steps for obtaining item composite sustainability data that is to be included in a second transfer request message transmitted from the second system/second entity to a third-party system/third entity associated with the conveyance of the second item from the second entity to the third entity. Furthermore, Freier does not teach or suggest the claim steps for verifying that the item composite sustainability data by determining that the item composite sustainability data includes a portion of the first sustainability data and second item production sustainability data.
Umay discloses a system that is configured to receive and collect a plurality of emission data records corresponding to a plurality of different emission reporting entities, where the emission data records are stored in an emission records ledger. The emission data records may specify, for example, an amount of cement purchased by one entity from another entity and an estimated amount of emissions associated with the cement manufacture. Moreover, emissions analytics may indicate a total emissions attributable to a particular entity over a window of time. Umay, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 20. In particular, Umay does not teach or suggest the claim steps for receiving a first transfer request message that is transmitted from a first system/first entity to a second system/second entity and associated with the conveyance of a first item from the first entity to the second entity, where the first transfer request message includes the first sustainability data associated with the first item that is a production input of a second item. Furthermore, Umay does not teach or suggest the claim steps for obtaining item composite sustainability data that is to be included in a second transfer request message transmitted from the second system/second entity to a third-party system/third entity associated with the conveyance of the second item from the second entity to the third entity. Furthermore, Umay does not teach or suggest the claim steps for verifying that the item composite sustainability data by determining that the item composite sustainability data includes a portion of the first sustainability data and second item production sustainability data.
Thorman discloses an environmental impact monitoring system that is configured to provide, upon request, an environmental impact associated with each transported item of goods. The system may obtain information relating to a transport assignment, obtain a total energy consumption measured for the transport assignment, and associate an environmental impact to each transported item of goods. Thorman, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 20. In particular, Thorman does not teach or suggest the claim steps for receiving a first transfer request message that is transmitted from a first system/first entity to a second system/second entity and associated with the conveyance of a first item from the first entity to the second entity, where the first transfer request message includes the first sustainability data associated with the first item that is a production input of a second item. Furthermore, Thorman does not teach or suggest the claim steps for obtaining item composite sustainability data that is to be included in a second transfer request message transmitted from the second system/second entity to a third-party system/third entity associated with the conveyance of the second item from the second entity to the third entity. Furthermore, Thorman does not teach or suggest the claim steps for verifying that the item composite sustainability data by determining that the item composite sustainability data includes a portion of the first sustainability data and second item production sustainability data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628