DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a non-final action in reply to the application filed on August 28, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 3/26/2024 has been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 8-14 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.
As per claim 8, claim 8 recites in the preamble “An apparatus comprising a non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium”. Examiner is not clear, is claim 8 an apparatus/machine or an article of manufacturing? The same rationale applies to dependent claims 9-14. Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022]. Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1-7 falls within statutory class of a process, claims 8-14 falls within statutory class of an article of manufacturing and claims 15-20 falls within statutory class of a machine. Examiner interpreted claims 8-14 in the statutory class of an article of manufacturing. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claim 1:
obtaining, using at least one hardware processor, decarbonization data and circular economy data associated with a capital project of an organization in a database;
storing, using the at least one hardware processor, the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format;
updating, using the at least one hardware processor, the decarbonization data and the circular economy data of the organization in real time; and
transmitting, using the at least one hardware processor, data visualizations of the updated decarbonization data and the updated circular economy data to users over a network in real time.
Claim 8:
obtaining decarbonization data and circular economy data associated with a capital project of an organization in a database;
storing the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format;
updating the decarbonization data and the circular economy data of the organization in real time; and transmitting data visualizations of the updated decarbonization data and the updated circular economy data to users over a network in real time.
Claim 15:
one or more memory modules;
one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory models to perform operations comprising:
obtaining decarbonization data and circular economy data associated with a capital project of an organization in a database;
storing the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format;
updating the decarbonization data and the circular economy data of the organization in real time; and transmitting data visualizations of the updated decarbonization data and the updated circular economy data to users over a network in real time.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions including business relations. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The hardware processor, memory modules and database is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing and processing system. This hardware processor, memory modules and database is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor, memory and display device. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] is directed to Step 2B. Therein, per Step 2B the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of hardware processor, memory modules and database. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic hardware processor, memory modules and database type structure at paragraphs 0053: “Examples of computational operations 512 include one or more computer systems 520 that include one or more processors and computer-readable media (e.g., non-transitory computer-readable media) operatively coupled to the one or more processors to execute computer operations to perform the methods of the present disclosure. The computational operations 512 can be implemented using one or more databases 518, which store data received from the field operations 510.” Paragraph 0072: “Computers suitable for the execution of a computer program can be based on one or more of general and special purpose microprocessors and other kinds of CPUs. The elements of a computer are a CPU for performing or executing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a CPU can receive instructions and data from (and write data to) a memory.” And paragraph 0076: “Examples of communication networks include a local area network (LAN), a radio access network (RAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), a wide area network (WAN), Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WIMAX), a wireless local area network (WLAN) (for example, using 802.11 a/b/g/n or 802.20 or a combination of protocols), all or a portion of the Internet, or any other communication system or systems at one or more locations (or a combination of communication networks). The network can communicate with, for example, Internet Protocol (IP) packets, frame relay frames, asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) cells, voice, video, data, or a combination of communication types between network addresses.” See also figure 6.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2, 9 and 16 further limit the abstract idea that the decarbonization data and the circular economy data are standardized to include a source identifier and load date attributes (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3, 10 and 17 further limit the abstract idea that users access the updated decarbonization data and the updated circular economy data in the database in real time through a graphical user interface (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 11 and 18 further limit the abstract idea that the database comprises historical decarbonization data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5, 12 and 19 further limit the abstract idea that the data visualizations comprise an aggregated view of decarbonization data across multiple organization levels (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6, 13 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by validating the decarbonization data and the circular economy data prior to storing the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claims 7 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by cleaning the decarbonization data and the circular economy data prior to storing the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions including business relations. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gilge et al., (US 2024/0412166 A1) hereinafter “Gilge”.
Claim 1:
Gilge as shown discloses a computer-implemented method that enables a data vault methodology for management of decarbonization and circular economy, the method comprising:
obtaining, using at least one hardware processor (¶ 0075), decarbonization data and circular economy data associated with a capital project of an organization in a database (¶ 0039: “project planning and assessment system 10 can be configured to receive source data 12, which can include project data, including for example project scope data, project cost data, project schedule data, project risk data, project control data, as well as other types of data including financial data, from a plurality of different data sources 11, and then process the source data 12 to assess the overall project scope and readiness of the project” and ¶ 0065-0071: “The project planning and assessment system 10 can also be configured to include an optional Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) assessment unit 36 for considering and assessing selected ESG standards relative to the project. […] Specifically, the ESG assessment unit 36 can be configured to include an ESG categorization unit 90 for classifying or categorizing the ESG data 12 into one or more of a plurality of ESG categories. […] The decarbonization factor includes removing or reducing carbon emissions during the project. This can be achieved by reducing demand or increasing reuse of resources and optimizing construction and production processes. The material factor can include circular economy of products and resources used in their production, transportation, use, and disposal.”);
storing, using the at least one hardware processor, the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format (¶ 0028: “The source data can be in hard copy or written form, such as in printed documents, or can be in digital file formats, such as in portable document format (PDFs), word processing file formats such as WORD documents, spreadsheet file formats such as EXCEL documents, as well as other file formats including hypertext markup language (HTML) and extensible markup language (XML) file formats and the like. It is well known in the art that the hard copies can be digitized and the relevant data extracted therefrom. The data can also be harmonized prior to processing by the system. For example, the source data can be converted into a PDF format for subsequent processing.”);
updating, using the at least one hardware processor, the decarbonization data and the circular economy data of the organization in real time; and (¶ 0064: “Incorporating benchmarking capabilities into the project planning and assessment system 10 of the present invention enables the system to provide real-time project comparison data for the enterprise and reduce the amount of manual effort required to compare benchmarking results and graphics, thereby, allowing resources to be deployed more efficiently and effectively.” See also ¶ 0071: “The ESG scoring unit 94 can also generate an ESG score 38 of Tier 4, which indicates that integrated ESG criteria has been designed and are adequately documented, with real time monitoring being completed and continuous improvement efforts underway to refine the ESG framework. The ESG scores 38 can be conveyed to the reporting unit 34 to generate reports.”);
transmitting, using the at least one hardware processor, data visualizations of the updated decarbonization data and the updated circular economy data to users over a network in real time ( “¶ 0071: “The ESG scoring unit 94 can also generate an ESG score 38 of Tier 4, which indicates that integrated ESG criteria has been designed and are adequately documented, with real time monitoring being completed and continuous improvement efforts underway to refine the ESG framework. The ESG scores 38 can be conveyed to the reporting unit 34 to generate reports.”);
Claims 8 and 15:
The limitations of claims 8 (¶ 0075) and 15 encompass substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 1, as described above. The following are the limitations of claim 15 that differ from claim 1.
Gilge as shown discloses a system, the system comprising:
one or more memory modules; one or more hardware processors communicably coupled to the one or more memory modules, the one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions stored on the one or more memory models to perform operations comprising: (¶ 0076: “a processor and a computer-readable memory capable of storing computer-readable instructions, and in which the processor is capable of executing the computer-readable instructions in the memory.”);
Claims 3, 10 and 17:
Gilge as shown discloses a system, the system comprising:
wherein users access the updated decarbonization data and the updated circular economy data in the database in real time through a graphical user interface (¶ 0070: “ The ESG scoring unit 94 can also generate an ESG score 38 of Tier 4, which indicates that integrated ESG criteria has been designed and are adequately documented, with real time monitoring being completed and continuous improvement efforts underway to refine the ESG framework. The ESG scores 38 can be conveyed to the reporting unit 34 to generate reports.” See also ¶ 0064: “Incorporating benchmarking capabilities into the project planning and assessment system 10 of the present invention enables the system to provide real-time project comparison data for the enterprise and reduce the amount of manual effort required to compare benchmarking results and graphics, thereby, allowing resources to be deployed more efficiently and effectively.”);
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 2, 6, 9, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilge et al., (US 2024/0412166 A1) hereinafter “Gilge” as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15, further in view of Kwok et al., Supporting ESG Data with Standards. Published April, 2022, https://xbrl.us/research/supporting-esg-with-standards/ hereinafter “Kwok”.
Claims 2, 9 and 16:
Gilge teaches in ¶ 0065: “The project planning and assessment system 10 can also be configured to include an optional Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) assessment unit 36 for considering and assessing selected ESG standards relative to the project.” Gilge is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Kwok in an analogous art of ESG data management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the decarbonization data and the circular economy data are standardized to include a source identifier and load date attributes (page 2: “Using data encoding standards: Modern data encoding languages (e.g., XBRL, XML, JSON, RDF) can be used to represent or encapsulate a value into a logical “fact.” A fact includes critical contextual information, for example, unit, date, reporting entity, and other descriptive information. Contextual information must be transported with the reported value to render the fact’s full meaning as computer-readable wherever the fact may be accessed.” See also page 16: “Using data encoding standards: Imagine if regulators and standard setters had equivalent expressions of their codifications in a machine-readable taxonomy such that machine-readable reports could be validated against the taxonomy as complete (all facts required to be reported are reported), and consistent (totals foot, and numbers are consistent in their unit of measure, reporting date, and entity ID).”);
Both Gilge and Kwok teach ESG data management. Gilge teaches in ¶ 0065: “The illustrated ESG assessment unit 36 can receive ESG data forming part of the project data 16 and then process the ESG data to determine an ESG score 38 associated with the project.” Kwok teaches in the Executive Summary “As regulators reflect on the question of ESG disclosures for companies, they need to consider where ESG reporting is today and what needs to be done to improve the availability, timeliness, and quality of the data reported.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kwok would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kwok to the teaching of Gilge would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein the decarbonization data and the circular economy data are standardized to include a source identifier and load date attributes into similar systems. Further, as noted by Kwok “ESG data, properly prepared in structured, standardized format will best serve the investment community’s needs for unambiguous, high-quality data, data-driven automation, and a reduction of burden by reporting entities.” (Kwok, Conclusion, page 17).
Claims 6, 13 and 20:
Gilge teaches in ¶ 0065: “The project planning and assessment system 10 can also be configured to include an optional Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) assessment unit 36 for considering and assessing selected ESG standards relative to the project.” Gilge is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Kwok in an analogous art of ESG data management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
comprising validating the decarbonization data and the circular economy data prior to storing the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format (page 11: “Business rules can be used to check the accuracy of a dimensional breakdown by embedding validation (business) rules in a taxonomy. This allows a data collector to publish a taxonomy that contains validation constraints for a report, helping automate data quality validation. For example, business rules can check that totals are accurately reported.” And page 16 “Provide guidance and validation tools to confirm that a submitted report is correct. Regulators should provide a consistent, clear definition of a “correct” report to give added guidance to preparers. Using data standards: The structure and restrictions of data standards allow us to build “fences” around what can be reported to conform to a definition of correctness, based on mathematical calculations (totals and subtotals add correctly, statement data foots), completeness (mandatory facts such as entity identifiers, time period, and required disclosures are flagged if absent), and that facts are compatible with other facts, compatible with units, etc.”);
Both Gilge and Kwok teach ESG data management. Gilge teaches in ¶ 0065: “The illustrated ESG assessment unit 36 can receive ESG data forming part of the project data 16 and then process the ESG data to determine an ESG score 38 associated with the project.” Kwok teaches in the Executive Summary “As regulators reflect on the question of ESG disclosures for companies, they need to consider where ESG reporting is today and what needs to be done to improve the availability, timeliness, and quality of the data reported.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kwok would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kwok to the teaching of Gilge would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as comprising validating the decarbonization data and the circular economy data prior to storing the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format into similar systems. Further, as noted by Kwok “ESG data, properly prepared in structured, standardized format will best serve the investment community’s needs for unambiguous, high-quality data, data-driven automation, and a reduction of burden by reporting entities.” (Kwok, Conclusion, page 17).
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilge et al., (US 2024/0412166 A1) hereinafter “Gilge” as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15, further in view of Jain et al., (US 2024/0303574 A1) hereinafter “Jain”.
Claims 4, 11 and 18:
Gilge is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Jain in an analogous art of environmental data management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the database comprises historical decarbonization data (¶ 0115:“the environmental performance data can be obtained from predictions of emissions for the organizations in the group. Step 602 can also use historical data for organization in the group. The analysis can include comparing the emission and associated parameters for the organization such as weather, asset age, electrical usage.”);
Both Gilge and Jain teach environmental data management. Gilge teaches in ¶ 0065: “The illustrated ESG assessment unit 36 can receive ESG data forming part of the project data 16 and then process the ESG data to determine an ESG score 38 associated with the project.” Jain teaches in the Abstract “ The number of processor units determines environmental performance for the organizations in the group using environmental data and the organization parameters for the organizations in the group.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Jain would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Jain to the teaching of Gilge would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein the database comprises historical decarbonization data into similar systems. Further, as noted by Jain “can more accurately identify environmental projects to recommend to an organization through analyzing environmental performance of different levels for organizations in a group of organizations identified as being related to the organization of interest.” (Jain, ¶ 0007).
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilge et al., (US 2024/0412166 A1) hereinafter “Gilge” as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15, further in view of Sharma et al., (US 11,875,163 B1) hereinafter “Sharma”.
Claims 5, 12 and 19:
Gilge teaches in ¶ 0006: “a reporting unit that can includes a user interface generator for generating one or more user interfaces for generating and displaying on a display device one or more reports”. Gilge is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Sharma in an analogous art of ESG data management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the data visualizations comprise an aggregated view of decarbonization data across multiple organization levels (col. 15, lines 34-67 to col. 16 lines 1-6: “The Overview Report generator 234 a-234 e (for ESG Screening, ESG Ratings, ESG Climate, ESG Carbon Earnings at Risk, ESG Thematic and ESG SFDR) returns the aggregated Portfolio/Benchmark Level Metrics. […] The Drilldown Report generator 236 a-236 f returns the aggregated ESG Metrics for groups formed on the portfolio/benchmark based on [Country, Global Industry classification standard (GICS—1,2,3), Region, Liquidity, Market Cap, Country Status]. […] The Climate Attribution Report generator 242 calculates the effects of sector allocation (based on GICS Sectors) and stock selection decisions on the portfolio footprint's relative efficiency to the benchmark.” See also figures 5-8, 10-13, 15-19, 21-26, 28-31 and 33A-35);
Both Gilge and Sharma teach ESG data management. Gilge teaches in ¶ 0065: “The illustrated ESG assessment unit 36 can receive ESG data forming part of the project data 16 and then process the ESG data to determine an ESG score 38 associated with the project.” Sharma teaches in the Abstract “retrieve Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) related data from one or more first databases, retrieve financial-related data from one or more second databases, and generate a dynamically interactive graphical user interface (GUI), containing a combination of ESG and financial information.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sharma would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Sharma to the teaching of Gilge would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein the data visualizations comprise an aggregated view of decarbonization data across multiple organization levels into similar systems. Further, as noted by Sharma “our GUI allows users to view the ESG exposures and impacts alongside the financial characteristics of a portfolio. It displays the ESG impact of financial/economical optimization decisions made on investment and trading portfolios and vice versa.” (Sharma, col. 18, lines 26-30).
Claims 7 and 14:
Gilge is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Sharma in an analogous art of ESG data management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
comprising cleaning the decarbonization data and the circular economy data prior to storing the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format (col. 13, lines 56-59: “The SFDR Data 210 is a derived dataset that maps underlying third-party ESG data to the EU SFDR principal adverse sustainability impact indicators. We clean the dataset by removing duplicate/null ISIN entries.”);
Both Gilge and Sharma teach ESG data management. Gilge teaches in ¶ 0065: “The illustrated ESG assessment unit 36 can receive ESG data forming part of the project data 16 and then process the ESG data to determine an ESG score 38 associated with the project.” Sharma teaches in the Abstract “retrieve Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) related data from one or more first databases, retrieve financial-related data from one or more second databases, and generate a dynamically interactive graphical user interface (GUI), containing a combination of ESG and financial information.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sharma would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Sharma to the teaching of Gilge would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as cleaning the decarbonization data and the circular economy data prior to storing the decarbonization data and the circular economy data in a standardized format into similar systems. Further, as noted by Sharma “our GUI allows users to view the ESG exposures and impacts alongside the financial characteristics of a portfolio. It displays the ESG impact of financial/economical optimization decisions made on investment and trading portfolios and vice versa.” (Sharma, col. 18, lines 26-30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET, 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. 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.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623