DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the Applicant on November 21, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The Examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Ivonnemary Rivera González.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 December 2023, 12 December 2024 and 04 December 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 11 and 20 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. Claims 11 and 20 recite the limitation(s) directed in part to "a system configured to perform the method of claim 1 [OR claim 12]", respectively. However, these claims are considered indefinite because the boundaries of what the claimed "system" comprises of are not clearly delineated and thus, the scope is unclear. Such “system” claimed may encompass “a combination of computing-related components, parts, or portions, such as hardware, firmware, and software parts, portions, units, modules, and/or other types of computing-related components, as well as various data communication channels for communicating data between and among the various computing-related components, parts, or portions of the system 100” (see ¶0014 from Applicant’s disclosure). But also, the “system” can include “any one or more devices or systems related thereto, and/or with other systems, processors, databases and/or devices”, as disclosed in ¶0041 from Applicant specifications. Therefore, the claims’ feature element of a “system”, is only limited "by what it does rather than by what it is" which make this limitation indefinite (e.g., as evidenced by or based on its specific structure; See MPEP 2173.05(g)). Because claims 11 and 20 are simply reciting a “system” performing all the previous functions of the method recited in claim 1 and 12, respectively. These functional steps referred from claims 1 and 12, are merely recited as a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention and does not impose no structural limits (i.e. merely reciting a “system” performing the claimed functions of the method does not impose structural limits). Meaning, that the claim failed to properly recite the particular structure, materials or steps (e.g. the complete structure of the claimed “system” in this case), as underlined above. The Examiner suggests to further define the claimed “system” by specifying at least the computer’s “processor(s) and memory” that are connected or are in communication via a “network” with other user devices/systems and/or databases (see ¶0014 – 18 and ¶0041 – 42 from Applicant’s disclosure). To advance compact prosecution the “system” is being interpreted as software per se configured to execute the claimed functions of claims 1 and 12.
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 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the "system" disclosed that further performs all functions from claims 1 and 12, respectively in claim 11 and 20, respectively, does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) as they are directed to "software per se" considered a "computer program" that is claimed as "a product without any structural recitations" and expresses software "as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium" which is an "idea without physical embodiment" ("software per se", see MPEP § 2106, and 2106.03, subsection I, respectively). Further, the specifications fail to limit the BRI of “system” including its sub-components, and the structure of the platform can be hardware as it can at least include “any one or more devices or systems related thereto, and/or with other systems, processors, databases and/or devices”, but also the “system” can also encompass “a combination of computing-related components, parts, or portions, such as hardware, firmware, and software parts” (see ¶0041 and ¶0014, respectively; Figure 1 from Applicant disclosure). Thus, an amendment to claims 11 and 20 is suggested to clarify and specify at least the hardware structure that the “system” is comprised of, such as processor(s) and a memory in connection to “user/communication interfaces” via a network that are configured to execute the claimed functions of claims 1 and 12.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, although the claim(s) mentioned above failed step 1, all claims were further evaluated for the purpose of compact prosecution. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claims 1 and 12, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 1 – 11 and claims 12 - 20 falls under statutory category of process, respectively.
At Step 2A Prong 1: The following claims recites an abstract idea in the following limitations:
For claim 1:
obtaining a plurality of candidate components for an ingredient of a personal care product;
for each candidate component included in the plurality of candidate components:
determining a respective initial e-impact rating of the each candidate component, the respective e-impact rating of the each candidate component indicative of an environmental impact of utilizing the each candidate component in ingredients of personal care products;
determining a respective e-hazard adjustment indicative of a respective amount of environmental hazard posed by waste that is generated by utilizing one or more components, of a respective component category in which the each candidate component is included, in the ingredients of personal care products, the respective component category included in a plurality of categories of components used in the ingredients of personal care products, the plurality of component categories delineated based on chemical structures of the components, feedstock sources of the components, and production processes of the components, and each component category of the plurality of component categories including a respective plurality of components used in the ingredients of personal care products; and
modifying the respective initial e-impact rating of the each candidate component based on the respective e-hazard adjustment corresponding to the respective component category, thereby generating a respective enhanced e-impact rating of the each candidate component;
selecting, based on a comparison of the enhanced e-impact ratings of the plurality of candidate components, an ingredient that includes a particular component of the plurality of candidate components; and
providing an indication of the selected ingredient…to thereby cause the selected ingredient to be utilized in manufacturing the personal care product.
For claim 12:
obtaining an indication of a plurality of candidate components for an ingredient of a personal care product;
for each candidate component included in the plurality of candidate components:
determining a respective component category, of a plurality of categories of components used in ingredients of personal care products, in which the each candidate component is included, the plurality of component categories delineated based on chemical structures of the components, feedstock sources of the components, and production processes of the components, and each component category of the plurality of component categories including a respective plurality of components used in the ingredients of personal care products;
determining a respective e-impact rating of the respective component category, the respective e-impact rating of the respective component category indicative of an environmental impact posed by waste that is generated by utilizing at least some of the respective plurality of components of the respective component category in the ingredients of personal care products; and
assigning the respective e-impact rating of the respective component category as a respective e-impact rating of the each candidate component;
selecting, based on a comparison of the e-impact ratings of the plurality of candidate components, an ingredient that includes a particular candidate component of the plurality of candidate components; and
providing an indication of the selected ingredient ...
Generally, and as disclosed in the specification in ¶0040, this claimed invention provides “the ability to more completely and quickly assess the relative environmental impacts of utilizing different candidate components in personal care product ingredients, as well as providing the ability to accurately and quickly assess the environmental impacts of using newly-introduced components with a greater levels of confidence and accuracy while expending less resources (e.g., less computing processing and/or memory resources) than presently-used techniques” and allow “enterprises to select and utilize more environmentally-preferred components to process into or otherwise utilize in end-product ingredients of personal care products in a resource-efficient manner to thereby reduce, minimize, and in some cases eliminate a majority of undesirable environmental impacts resulting therefrom.” However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) are/is recited in claims 1 and 12 in the form of “commercial or legal interactions”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in the claims’ step directed in part to “providing an indication of the selected ingredient…” to an enterprise user so it can be “utilized in manufacturing the personal care product” which is at least encompassing commercial interactions related to advertising (i.e. recommending/suggesting eco-friendly ingredients to create/produce that are environmentally friendly products).
The steps directed in part to: “determining” “a respective component category” (from claim 12 only), a “respective initial e-impact rating” (from claims 1 and 12), and a “respective e-hazard adjustment” (from claim 1 only) per candidate component; the step of “modifying the respective initial e-impact rating” per candidate component (from claim 1 only); the step of “assigning the respective e-impact rating of the respective component category as a respective e-impact rating” per candidate component (from claim 12 only); the steps of “selecting, based on a comparison of the enhanced e-impact ratings of the plurality of candidate components, an ingredient” per candidate component and “providing an indication of the selected ingredient” (from claims 1 and 12) fall under the abstract idea of mental processes that can be practically be performed in the human mind or in pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Because determining ratings and adjustment amounts related to environmental impact and hazards to specific component(s) and their respective category to assign/modify the e-impact rating based on hazard adjustments to select ingredients based on enhanced e-impact ratings comparisons to further provide the selected ingredients as an indication for it to be utilized in the manufacturing of final personal care products encompass observations, evaluations and judgements. Also, these steps can either be done with the help of physical aid such as pen and paper or can be performed by humans without or with the assistance (e.g. tool) a computer. Thus, the steps do not negate and further still reads in the mental nature of the limitation(s), when determining/providing such candidate component information, as well as the concept is merely claimed to be performed on a generic computer and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept of providing recommendations for the utilization of “end-product ingredients of personal care products” to “reduce, minimize, and in some cases eliminate a majority of undesirable environmental impacts resulting therefrom” as previously cited from the disclosure (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)).
As for steps directed in part to “determining” a “respective initial e-impact rating” (from claims 1 and 12), and a “respective e-hazard adjustment” (from claim 1 only) per candidate component, these steps encompass mathematical concepts (e.g. based on average scores and e-hazard adjustments, as later claimed in claims 8 and 16, respectively) that can be performed mentally or in pen and paper and requires specific mathematical calculations to rate the e-impact per product’s candidate component.
At Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1 and 12, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of at least one of a computer application or a user interface (from claims 1 and 12). These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, these steps are recited as being performed by the computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for providing the selected ingredients, based on e-impact ratings and e-hazard adjustment determinations of each component, in order to utilize them in the manufacturing of final personal care products. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
Step 2B: For independent claims 1 and 12, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: at least one of a computer application or a user interface (from claims 1 and 12). These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 2-11 and 13 - 20, the same analysis is incorporated. Due to their dependency to the independent claims analyzed, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea(s) of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2-11 and 13 - 20: further describes the abstract idea of the method of producing a personal care product with environmentally preferred ingredients and how it will be utilized as formulation or in manufacturing, as to which category the e-hazard adjustment corresponds and what indicates as well as how is evaluated, the types of candidate components are derived of, the types of production processes of the components and what these comprised thereof, how e-impact ratings are determined, modified or enhanced, assigned and based on. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of “commercial interactions” related to advertising, mental processes encompassing observations, evaluations and judgements.
Claims 7-8, 10, 15 and 18: further describes the abstract idea of the method of producing a personal care product with environmentally preferred ingredients and requires mathematical concepts or calculations for the e-hazard adjustments and e-impact ratings determinations when enhancing/modifying/updating and averaging them through scores/measurements.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 10 – 11, 18 and 20, these claims recite the additional elements of: a tool (claims 10 and 18) and a system (claims 11 and 20). These additional elements recited are invoking computers merely used as a tool to perform or “apply” the abstract idea(s) to the existing process of providing recommendations as candidate component’s ingredient indications for them to be utilized in end-product ingredients of personal care products based on environmental impact score values and e-hazard adjustment determinations. Thus, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2)). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, these additional element(s) claimed cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Nothing additional is claimed that is not part of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSorbo (U.S. Pub No. 20100262445 A1) in view of Predale (U.S. Pub No. 20110246397 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12:
Claim 12’s language has been incorporated into claim 1, as shown in the brackets, for a cohesive prior art mapping.
DeSorbo teaches:
obtaining [an indication of] a plurality of candidate components for an ingredient of a personal care product; (In ¶0036; Fig. 5 (S1 – S3); Fig. 6: teaches that in “process S1, component determinator 33 determines what components are in the product, e.g., what chemicals make up a product's formulation. FIG. 6 shows an example product, and illustrates that the product contains several different chemicals, including Benzoquinone, Formaldehyde and Edta. Where the product is well known, component determinator 33 can access data 40, or any publicly or privately available databases to provide this information”, in accordance to the obtaining step for candidate components (i.e. candidate chemical components) definition and examples given in ¶0042 and ¶0058 from Applicant disclosure. Also, “percentage determinator 35 can determine a percentage of a component after determining whether the component is a member of a list in a category” (see ¶0039). Refer to ¶0027 wherein “Sustainability indicator system data 40 can include information on product components, information on percentages of components in products, regulatory lists categorizing component” and to ¶0030 for the “component” definition.)
for each candidate component included in the plurality of candidate components: determining a respective initial e-impact rating of the each candidate component, the respective e-impact rating of the each candidate component indicative of an environmental impact of utilizing the each candidate component in ingredients of personal care products; (In ¶0040 – 41; Fig. 5 (S4 – S5): teaches in “step S4, sustainability indicator calculator 36 multiplies the percentage of the product, P, by the weighting factor, W, assigned to the regulatory category to determine an interim sustainability indicator. In the example discussed herein, the percentage, 10%, would be multiplied by the weighting factor for the Known Carcinogen category, which was ‘500’ in this example (FIG. 4)”. Further, “in process S5, the system next determines whether the component, (formaldehyde, in this example) is a member of any additional regulatory categories in the chosen classification. If yes, processes S2-S4 are repeated for the component (formaldehyde, in this example) for every selected category in the chosen classification.”)
determining a respective e-hazard adjustment indicative of a respective amount of environmental hazard posed by waste that is generated by utilizing one or more components, of a respective component category in which the each candidate component is included, (In ¶0041; Fig. 3I; Fig. 4 (Mutagenic Hazard and Hazardous waste categories); Fig 5 (S5): teaches “in process S5, the system next determines whether the component, (formaldehyde, in this example) is a member of any additional regulatory categories in the chosen classification”. As an example, “if formaldehyde is also listed on a list in a “Mutagenic Hazard” category, the percentage of formaldehyde (e.g., 10%) would be multiplied by a weighting factor assigned to the “Mutagenic Hazard” category (e.g., 50), to yield a result of 5.0. If it is assumed for purposes of this example that formaldehyde is not listed in a list in any other selected regulatory category, the total sustainability indicator for the formaldehyde component would then be 55 (added). The sustainability indicators may be combined in any now known or later developed manner of combining”, in accordance to the e-hazard adjustment definition and example given in ¶0049 from Applicant disclosure. Refer to ¶0033 for “Hazardous waste” category details.)
in the ingredients of personal care products, the respective component category included in a plurality of categories of components used in the ingredients of personal care products, the plurality of component categories delineated based on chemical structures of the components, feedstock sources of the components, and production processes of the components, and each component category of the plurality of component categories including a respective plurality of components used in the ingredients of personal care products; and (In ¶0032 – 33; Figs. 3A – 3M; Fig. 5 (S9) Figs. 2, 4 and 6 – 7: teaches “as shown in FIG. 2, category/list chooser 38 b can also allow a user to group the selected regulatory lists into regulatory categories created by the user, and then group the regulatory categories into classifications, as desired. In other words, once a user chooses which regulatory lists they are interested in, they can group the regulatory lists into regulatory categories of their choosing, and then can group the categories by classification as desired”. Further, “user can also define the classification as desired, such as a health related classification, an environmental related classification, a physical hazard related classification, etc.” Refer to ¶0035 and ¶0043 – 44 for more details.)
[assigning the respective e-impact rating of the respective component category as a respective e-impact rating of the each candidate component;] (In ¶0040 – 41; Fig. 5 (S4 – S5): teaches “in step S4, sustainability indicator calculator 36 multiplies the percentage of the product, P, by the weighting factor, W, assigned to the regulatory category to determine an interim sustainability indicator”.)
modifying the respective initial e-impact rating of the each candidate component based on the respective e-hazard adjustment corresponding to the respective component category, thereby generating a respective enhanced e-impact rating of the each candidate component; (In ¶0042; Fig. 5 (S8 – S10): teaches that “once it is determined that there are no additional components in the product (i.e., a “no” at process S7), the total sustainability indicators for each component are combined together in process S8 to determine a total sustainability indicator for the classification. Again, the sustainability indicators may be combined in any now known or later developed manner of combining.” Further, in ¶0044, “once the total sustainability indicators for every classification have been calculated and it has been determined that there are no other classifications, (i.e., a “no” at process S9), outputter 37 outputs the total sustainability indicators for every classification with the product, as shown in process S10”.)
providing an indication of the selected ingredient to at least one of a computer application or a user interface to thereby cause the selected ingredient to be utilized in manufacturing the personal care product. (In ¶0044; Fig. 5 (S10); Figs. 6 – 8: teaches that “once the total sustainability indicators for every classification have been calculated and it has been determined that there are no other classifications, (i.e., a “no” at process S9), outputter 37 outputs the total sustainability indicators for every classification with the product, as shown in process S10”. The “sustainability indicator(s) may be outputted for use with a product in a number of ways, for example, stored in a database, displayed on a product, or any other manner of indicating to a consumer (e.g., a merchandiser, a supplier, an end user of the product, etc.) information about a product. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, the sustainability indicators can be provided as numeric indicators. In one embodiment, if the sustainability indicator(s) is a numeric indicator, the number can be displayed on a product for a consumer to view. In another embodiment, the sustainability indicators calculated as discussed herein, typically in the form of numeric indicators, can be plotted on a graph using plotter 37 a to provide a graphical representation of the product's sustainability.” Further, a grading system can be used to grade a sustainability indicator (for example, as “high/medium/low”, on a scale from 1 to 10, or using traditional educational grades A through F)” that the grade “can be displayed on a product in order for a consumer or retailer to view. The sustainability indicators can also be used to compare similar products, such as dishwashing detergents or lawn fertilizers to see which brand is more “green” as shown in FIG. 7”. But also, the “total sustainability indicator for each classification is outputted, it is understood that the results of other calculations, and any raw data obtained throughout the disclosed system's processes (e.g., processes S4, S6, S8) may be outputted” (directed to the system selecting the highest rated ingredients from a particular component based on sustainability) wherein “following may be outputted: the sustainability indicator for each classification, the total sustainability indicator for any component, the interim sustainability indicators, and/or the results of the calculations in process S4 for each component or category”. See Fig. 7 wherein a scale for preferred product is displayed.)
DeSorbo does not explicitly teach the ability of selecting an ingredient including a particular component based on the comparison of enhanced e-impact ratings per candidate component. However, Predale teaches:
selecting, based on a comparison of the enhanced e-impact ratings of the plurality of candidate components, an ingredient that includes a particular component of the plurality of candidate components; and (In ¶0099 – 100: teaches an “Finished Product Scored Content Only (FPSCO) Score is the weighted score for all scored non-water ingredients in the product, and is one indicator of the environmental preferability of the formula” wherein “the formula with a higher FPSCO score is tentatively selected as the environmentally preferable alternative”, in accordance to the selecting step for an ingredient definition and example given in ¶0070 and ¶0070 from Applicant disclosure.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeSorbo to provide the ability of selecting an ingredient including a particular component based on the comparison of enhanced e-impact ratings per candidate component, as taught by Predale in order to encourage “the use of ingredients that are readily biodegradable and have minimal impact to the ecosystem and optionally allows product formulators to include environmental performance as an additional criterion when selecting ingredients in new product development, and further may optionally provide a process to measure and track overall progress in environmental performance, not only by a product formulation but also by a business unit.” (¶0029; Predale), see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claims 2 and 13:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively.
DeSorbo does not explicitly teach the ability of selecting an ingredient for a particular component to produce a formulation of the personal care product. However, Predale further teaches:
further comprising utilizing the selected ingredient in which the particular component is included in at least one of: producing a formulation of the personal care product, or the manufacturing of the personal care product. (In ¶0134 – 135: teaches that this prior art method “develops environmental scores for ingredients and formulations and encourages formulators to move toward more environmentally preferred ingredients and formulations”. Further, the system can set “a goal to achieve an improvement in the environmental score of the master formula over a certain time interval by intentionally replacing lower-scoring ingredients with higher-scoring ingredients in new or reformulated products”. See ¶0136 also.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeSorbo to provide the ability of selecting an ingredient for a particular component to produce a formulation of the personal care product, as taught by Predale in order to encourage “the use of ingredients that are readily biodegradable and have minimal impact to the ecosystem and optionally allows product formulators to include environmental performance as an additional criterion when selecting ingredients in new product development, and further may optionally provide a process to measure and track overall progress in environmental performance, not only by a product formulation but also by a business unit.” (¶0029; Predale), see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
DeSorbo further teaches:
wherein the respective e-hazard adjustment corresponding to the respective component category is indicative of the respective amount of environmental hazard posed by the waste that is generated by the utilizing of the one or more components of the respective component category in the ingredients of personal care products relative to amounts of environmental hazards posed by waste that is generated by utilizing components corresponding to other component categories in the ingredients of personal care products. (In ¶0040 – 41; Fig. 3I; Fig. 4 (Mutagenic Hazard and Hazardous waste categories and their respective weights); Fig 5 (S5): teaches this non-functional descriptive material, as “sustainability indicator calculator 36 multiplies the percentage of the product, P, by the weighting factor, W, assigned to the regulatory category to determine an interim sustainability indicator” wherein the “regulatory category” can be the “Hazardous Waste” with a weight of 50 and further details can be expanded as shown in Fig. 4, that are directed to the relative amounts of environmental hazards posed by waste that is generated by utilizing components in the ingredients of personal care products.)
Regarding claims 4 and 17:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 16, respectively.
DeSorbo further teaches:
wherein the respective amount of environmental hazard posed by the waste that is generated by the utilizing, in the ingredients of personal care products, of the one or more components of the respective component category in which the each candidate component is included is based on at least two of: reagents, auxiliaries, catalysts, reaction mechanisms, reaction aids, solvents, reaction byproducts, removed impurities, unreacted starting materials, greenhouse gas emissions, solvent recovery, solvent loss, purification, equipment cleaning processes, manufacturing of starting materials, recycling, upcycling, gasification, composting, utilization of at least a portion of the waste as microbial feedstock, processing through aqueous waste treatment plants, landfilling, byproduct recovery, or hazard quality of the waste due to the utilization, in the ingredients of personal care products, of the one or more components of the respective component category in which the each candidate component is included. (In ¶0034; Fig. 3I; Fig. 4 (Mutagenic Hazard and Hazardous waste categories and their respective weights); Fig 5 (S5): teaches this non-functional descriptive material, “as shown in FIG. 4, the user has assigned a weighting factor of 500 to the Known Carcinogen category while assigning the Ozone Depletion category a weighting factor of 75. In another embodiment, the choosing of lists and/or regulatory categories, and the assigning of the weighting factor is automatically assigned by the system based on industry standards.” See ¶0030 wherein “regulatory lists can include lists of components sorted, i.e., characterized, by various hazards and/or properties of the components”.)
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
DeSorbo does not explicitly teach the ability of having process of components that are including procurement of feedstocks, processing of the procured feedstocks and waste disposal and/or waste mitigation per components used in the ingredients of personal care products. However, Predale teaches:
wherein the production processes of the components used in the ingredients of personal care products include procurement of feedstocks corresponding to the components used in the ingredients of personal care products, processing of the procured feedstocks into the components used in the ingredients of personal care products, and waste disposal and/or waste mitigation caused by the procurement of the feedstocks and/or the processing of the procured feedstocks into the components used in the ingredients of personal care products. (In ¶0041; Fig. 1: teaches this non-functional descriptive material, as the considerations for production processes of components when obtaining “results of a ready biodegradability test” that includes “a stringent laboratory screening test which is conducted under aerobic conditions in which a relatively high concentration of test substance (2 to 100 mg/L) is exposed to microorganisms” and biodegradation “is measured using a non-specific parameter such as carbon dioxide production”. Also, “OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals” are considered and when there is “absence of reliable empirical ready biodegradability data, it is acceptable to use a widely accepted predictive model (e.g., the computer model BIOWIN™ which is a widely recognized wastewater treatment process modeling and simulation package which predicts the result of a ready biodegradability test, and is included in US EPA, 2009) to determine ready biodegradability”, in accordance to the production processing phases examples given in ¶0064 – 65 from Applicant disclosure. Refer to ¶0061 – 63 for Toxicity Considerations for Readily Biodegradable Ingredients example and to ¶0064 – 65 for Bioaccumulation Considerations for Readily Biodegradable Ingredients example.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeSorbo to provide the ability of having process of components that are including procurement of feedstocks, processing of the procured feedstocks and waste disposal and/or waste mitigation per components used in the ingredients of personal care products, as taught by Predale in order to encourage “the use of ingredients that are readily biodegradable and have minimal impact to the ecosystem and optionally allows product formulators to include environmental performance as an additional criterion when selecting ingredients in new product development, and further may optionally provide a process to measure and track overall progress in environmental performance, not only by a product formulation but also by a business unit.” (¶0029; Predale), see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claims 6 and 15:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 5 and 14, respectively.
This dependent claim set is represented by claim 6
DeSorbo does not explicitly teach the ability of having procurement of the feedstocks of at least one of chemical synthesis, chemical modification, biological derivation and/or type of procurement that utilizes a biological organism synthesis or for waste disposal/mitigation, at least including utilization as microbial feedstock and/or processing through aqueous waste treatment plants. However, Predale teaches:
wherein at least one of: the procurement of the feedstocks includes at least one of: mining, harvesting, refining, agricultural production, mineral processing, chemical synthesis, chemical modification, biological derivation, fermentation, enzymatic catalysis, another type of procurement that utilizes a biological organism, or convergent synthesis; or the waste disposal and/or waste mitigation includes at least one of recycling, upcycling, gasification, composting, utilization as microbial feedstock, processing through aqueous waste treatment plants, landfilling, or another waste mitigation technique. (In ¶0041; Fig. 1: teaches this non-functional descriptive material, as the considerations for production processes of components when obtaining “results of a ready biodegradability test” that includes “a stringent laboratory screening test which is conducted under aerobic conditions in which a relatively high concentration of test substance (2 to 100 mg/L) is exposed to microorganisms” and biodegradation “is measured using a non-specific parameter such as carbon dioxide production”. Also, “OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals” are considered and when there is “absence of reliable empirical ready biodegradability data, it is acceptable to use a widely accepted predictive model (e.g., the computer model BIOWIN™ which is a widely recognized wastewater treatment process modeling and simulation package which predicts the result of a ready biodegradability test, and is included in US EPA, 2009) to determine ready biodegradability” which is at least directed to procurement of the feedstocks of at least one of chemical synthesis, chemical modification, biological derivation and/or type of procurement that utilizes a biological organism synthesis or for waste disposal/mitigation, at least including utilization as microbial feedstock and/or processing through aqueous waste treatment plants. Refer to ¶0061 – 63 for Toxicity Considerations for Readily Biodegradable Ingredients example and to ¶0064 – 65 for Bioaccumulation Considerations for Readily Biodegradable Ingredients example.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeSorbo to provide the ability of having procurement of the feedstocks of at least one of chemical synthesis, chemical modification, biological derivation and/or type of procurement that utilizes a biological organism synthesis or for waste disposal/mitigation, at least including utilization as microbial feedstock and/or processing through aqueous waste treatment plants, as taught by Predale in order to encourage “the use of ingredients that are readily biodegradable and have minimal impact to the ecosystem and optionally allows product formulators to include environmental performance as an additional criterion when selecting ingredients in new product development, and further may optionally provide a process to measure and track overall progress in environmental performance, not only by a product formulation but also by a business unit.” (¶0029; Predale), see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
DeSorbo further teaches:
wherein the determining of the respective initial e-impact rating of the each candidate component includes: determining a respective e-impact rating of the respective component category in which the each candidate component is included, the respective e-impact rating of the respective component category indicative of an environmental impact posed by waste that is generated by utilizing any one component of multiple components included in the respective component category in the ingredients of personal care products; and (In ¶0040 – 41; Fig. 3I; Fig. 4 (Hazardous waste category and its respective weights); Fig. 5 (S4 – S5): teaches this non-functional descriptive material when in “step S4, sustainability indicator calculator 36 multiplies the percentage of the product, P, by the weighting factor, W, assigned to the regulatory category to determine an interim sustainability indicator. In the example discussed herein, the percentage, 10%, would be multiplied by the weighting factor for the Known Carcinogen category, which was ‘500’ in this example (FIG. 4)”. Further, “in process S5, the system next determines whether the component, (formaldehyde, in this example) is a member of any additional regulatory categories in the chosen classification. If yes, processes S2-S4 are repeated for the component (formaldehyde, in this example) for every selected category in the chosen classification.” See ¶0033 for Fig. 3I wherein environmental related classifications such as “Hazardous Waste (FIG. 31),” are included when calculating the sustainability indicator weight as shown in Fig. 4.)
assigning the respective e-impact rating of the respective component category as the respective initial e-impact rating of the each candidate component. (In ¶0040 – 41; Fig. 5 (S4 – S5): teaches “in step S4, sustainability indicator calculator 36 multiplies the percentage of the product, P, by the weighting factor, W, assigned to the regulatory category to determine an interim sustainability indicator”.)
Regarding claim 8:
DeSorbo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
DeSorbo further teaches:
wherein the respective e-impact rating of the respective component category is based on an average of e-impact ratings of an entirety of the respective plurality of components included in the respective component category. (In ¶0041; Fig. 7 (Average Score of Products in Group and Average Score of Products from this Supplier): teaches that “the sustainability indicators may be combined in any now known or later developed manner of combining. In one embodiment, they may be added together. In another embodiment, they may be averaged.”)
Regarding claims 9 and 14:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively.
DeSorbo does not explicitly teach the ability of determining a respective amount of environmental hazard posed by waste that is generated by procuring feedstocks, processing the procured feedstocks or disposing and/or mitigating waste per candidate component. However, Predale further teaches:
wherein the determining of the respective initial e-impact rating of the each candidate component includes determining a respective amount of environmental hazard posed by waste that is generated by at least one of: procuring feedstocks corresponding to the each candidate component; processing, into the each candidate component, the procured feedstocks corresponding to the each candidate component; or disposing of and/or mitigating the generated waste corresponding to at least one of the procuring of the feedstocks corresponding to the each candidate component or the processing of the procured feedstocks corresponding to the each candidate component. (In ¶0041; Fig. 1, Tables 1 – 3: teaches this non-functional descriptive material, as the considerations for production processes of components when obtaining “results of a ready biodegradability test” that includes “a stringent laboratory screening test which is conducted under aerobic conditions in which a relatively high concentration of test substance (2 to 100 mg/L) is exposed to microorganisms” and biodegradation “is measured using a non-specific parameter such as carbon dioxide production”. Also, “OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals” are considered and when there is “absence of reliable empirical ready biodegradability data, it is acceptable to use a widely accepted predictive model (e.g., the computer model BIOWIN™ which is a widely recognized wastewater treatment process modeling and simulation package which predicts the result of a ready biodegradability test, and is included in US EPA, 2009) to determine ready biodegradability”. Then, “the model indicates the ingredient is readily biodegradable, persistence score is 100 minus a modeling uncertainty penalty (e.g., 5 points)” which is directed to determining an initial e-impacting rating (see ¶0044 and ¶0065 – 66 for details of the “Persistence score” being a weight/factor for a “final PBT score”). If reliable empirical data indicate the ingredient is not readily biodegradable, or in the absence of reliable empirical data, if a widely accepted predictive model indicates the ingredient is not readily biodegradable; then the environmental media of concern will need to be determined.” Refer to ¶0061 – 63 for Toxicity Considerations for Readily Biodegradable Ingredients example and to ¶0064 – 65 for Bioaccumulation Considerations for Readily Biodegradable Ingredients example.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeSorbo to provide the ability of determining a respective amount of environmental hazard posed by waste that is generated by procuring feedstocks, processing the procured feedstocks or disposing and/or mitigating waste per candidate component, as taught by Predale in order to encourage “the use of ingredients that are readily biodegradable and have minimal impact to the ecosystem and optionally allows product formulators to include environmental performance as an additional criterion when selecting ingredients in new product development, and further may optionally provide a process to measure and track overall progress in environmental performance, not only by a product formulation but also by a business unit.” (¶0029; Predale), see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claims 10 and 18:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 16, respectively.
DeSorbo further teaches:
further comprising: integrating the respective e-hazard adjustment corresponding to the respective component category with a tool configured to evaluate at least one of: environmental impacts of processing at least one component for use in personal care products, or environmental impacts of using the at least one component in personal care products, thereby generating an updated tool; and utilizing the updated tool to thereby provide an indication of a score or measure of at least one of: an environmental impact of processing the particular component that is included in the respective component category for use in the personal care product, or an environmental impact of utilizing the particular component in the personal care product, the score or measure being at least partly based the respective e-hazard adjustment of the respective component category. (In ¶0045 – 46; Figs. 6 – 7: teaches that “a grading system can be used to grade a sustainability indicator (for example, as “high/medium/low”, on a scale from 1 to 10, or using traditional educational grades A through F)” which is interpreted as integrating a tool that can be updated (e.g. refined/adjusted) for the e-hazard adjustment per component category to evaluate and provide a respective indication of a score or measure for at least environmental impact(s) of using the component(s) in personal care products and the score based on the respective e-hazard adjustment per component category. Further, “this grade can be displayed on a product in order for a consumer or retailer to view. The sustainability indicators can also be used to compare similar products, such as dishwashing detergents or lawn fertilizers to see which brand is more “green” as shown in FIG. 7”, in accordance to a tool definition of a Green Score tool and example given in ¶0056 from Applicant disclosure. But also, the “total sustainability indicator for each classification is outputted, it is understood that the results of other calculations, and any raw data obtained throughout the disclosed system's processes (e.g., processes S4, S6, S8) may be outputted” wherein “following may be outputted: the sustainability indicator for each classification, the total sustainability indicator for any component, the interim sustainability indicators, and/or the results of the calculations in process S4 for each component or category”.)
Regarding claims 11 and 20:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 16, respectively.
Claim 20’s language has been incorporated into claim 11, as shown in the brackets.
DeSorbo further teaches:
A system configured to perform the method of claim 1 [AND of claim 12]. (In ¶0024; Fig. 1A (20): teaches “a module 32 can enable computer system 20 to perform a set of tasks used by sustainability indicator system 30, and can be separately developed and/or implemented apart from other portions of sustainability indicator system 3” and when “fixed in a storage component 24 of a computer system 20 that includes a processing component 22, a sub-module is part of a module”. See ¶0022 for more computer system hardware details.)
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12.
DeSorbo further teaches:
wherein: the respective e-impact rating of the each candidate component is a respective initial e- impact rating of the each candidate component; and (In ¶0040 – 41; Fig. 5 (S4 – S5): teaches “in step S4, sustainability indicator calculator 36 multiplies the percentage of the product, P, by the weighting factor, W, assigned to the regulatory category to determine an interim sustainability indicator”.)
the method further comprises modifying the respective initial e-impact rating of the each candidate component based on a respective e-hazard adjustment corresponding to the respective component category in which the each candidate component is included, thereby generating a respective enhanced e-impact rating of the each candidate component, (In ¶0042; Fig. 5 (S8 – S10): teaches that “once it is determined that there are no additional components in the product (i.e., a “no” at process S7), the total sustainability indicators for each component are combined together in process S8 to determine a total sustainability indicator for the classification. Again, the sustainability indicators may be combined in any now known or later developed manner of combining.” Further, in ¶0044, “once the total sustainability indicators for every classification have been calculated and it has been determined that there are no other classifications, (i.e., a “no” at process S9), outputter 37 outputs the total sustainability indicators for every classification with the product, as shown in process S10”.)
the respective e-hazard adjustment indicative of a respective amount of environmental hazard posed by waste that is generated by utilizing, in the ingredients of personal care products, at least some of the respective plurality of components of the respective component category in which the each candidate component is included. (In ¶0041; Fig. 3I; Fig. 4 (Mutagenic Hazard and Hazardous waste categories); Fig 5 (S5): teaches “in process S5, the system next determines whether the component, (formaldehyde, in this example) is a member of any additional regulatory categories in the chosen classification”. As an example, “if formaldehyde is also listed on a list in a “Mutagenic Hazard” category, the percentage of formaldehyde (e.g., 10%) would be multiplied by a weighting factor assigned to the “Mutagenic Hazard” category (e.g., 50), to yield a result of 5.0. If it is assumed for purposes of this example that formaldehyde is not listed in a list in any other selected regulatory category, the total sustainability indicator for the formaldehyde component would then be 55 (added). The sustainability indicators may be combined in any now known or later developed manner of combining”. Refer to ¶0033 for “Hazardous waste” category details.)
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of DeSorbo and Predale, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12.
DeSorbo further teaches:
wherein the plurality of component categories includes: commodity or basic chemicals, semi-complex chemicals, fine chemicals and/or polymers that are derived from petroleum and/or from natural feedstocks, biological materials and/or biological ferments that are directly used, refined, and/or chemically modified, and minerals that are directly used, refined, and/or chemically modified. (In ¶0030; Fig. 6: teaches “The regulatory lists can include lists of components sorted, i.e., characterized, by various hazards and/or properties of the components. “Component” as used herein, is intended to include elements, chemicals, families of chemicals, combinations of chemicals or other substances that are listed on regulatory lists. For example, a component is typically a chemical or substance which has a molecular weight, i.e., an identifiable molecular structure.” Also, refer to ¶0036 wherein “FIG. 6 shows an example product, and illustrates that the product contains several different chemicals, including Benzoquinone, Formaldehyde and Edta. Where the product is well known, component determinator 33 can access data 40, or any publicly or privately available databases to provide this information. Alternatively, the user can also provide information to component determinator 33 regarding the components in the product. For example, a user could manually input what components make up the product.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hicks (U.S. Pub No. 20150100516 A1) is pertinent because it is “directed to analyzing and scoring cosmetic products.”
Fretay (U.S. Patent No. 12024688 B2) is pertinent because it “relates generally to the field of perfumery. More particularly, it relates to the sustainable design of perfume formulae, perfume compositions corresponding to said formulae and consumer products containing said compositions.”
Jahns (U.S. Pub No. 20190331655 A1) is pertinent because it “refers to a method for identifying the environmental impact of new compounds with regard to key parameters as for example biodegradability and carbon dioxide production.”
Austin (U.S. Pub No. 20100114917 A1) is pertinent because it “relate[s] to the field of materials management, and more particularly, to methods and apparatus for screening of products.”
Gadol (U.S. Pub No. 20200005332 A1) is pertinent because it is a system that “implements a technique allowing verification and traceability, and full transparency on the origins of a cosmetic product, which may include a combination of various ingredients and/or chemicals in its composition.”
Daulton (U.S. Pub No. 20160321433 A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “evaluating chemical substances such as compounds, components and/or products, and generating chemical evaluation summaries, reports, scores or other outputs.”
Parkkinen (U.S. Pub No. 20180150896 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to a method and a system for making product recommendations; and more specifically, to a method and a system for recommending appropriate skin care product to users.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights