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 .
Priority
For the purpose of prior art consideration, the effective filing date of the instant application is based on the application filed in Europe on July 24th, 2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “life cycle module” and “language model module” in claims 1-15.
Claim 1, 4, 6 and 8-15 – “determining an environmental impact of a product, …, implemented by a life cycle module” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked.
Claim 1, 4, 6 and 8-15 – “sending said request to a language model module, receiving a reply from said language model module, …” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claim 1, to include all independent claims, purport to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function of determining an environmental impact of a product as performed by a life cycle module or sending said request to a language model module and receiving a reply from said language model module. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Dependent claims 4, 6 and 10-15 further claim functions sending, receiving, requesting, inserting, vectorize, and communicate performed respectively by a life cycle module and a language model module
Dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15 are rejected for their dependency on the rejected respective independent base claims 1 and 9.
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.
Claim limitation “life cycle module” and “language model module” of claim 1, 8 and 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no particular structure or device in the entire written disclosure (specification or claims) of the instant application that describes in a manner that is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the limits of said life cycle module and language model module. Therefore, claims 1-15, as all independent claims comprise said life cycle module and language model module are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15 are rejected for their dependency on the rejected respective independent base claims 1 and 9.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further:
Claims 1-15 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.
The term “most suitable material” in claims 1, 2 and 8-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most suitable material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention to determine that a material qualifies as most suitable. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “longer text” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “longer text” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention to determine that text data qualifies as longer. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15 are rejected for their dependency on the rejected respective independent base claims 1 and 9.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because said claim recites a computer program per se without any structural limitations recited since the set of instructions recited is detached from any medium. This is merely an idea without physical embodiment and is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Whether a Claim is to a Statutory Category
In the instant case, claims 1-7 recite a method/process and claims 9-15 recite a system/ machine that is performing a series of functions. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention of a machine and a process. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step2A – Prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include an enumerated “abstract idea”:
A method for determining an environmental impact of a product, said method, implemented by a life cycle module, comprising:
obtaining a list of components of the product and, for each component of said list of components, a list of type of materials,
for each type of material of said each component, requesting a list of materials from a life cycle inventory database and receiving said list of materials from said life cycle inventory database,
for each list of materials that is received, generating a request comprising said list of materials that is obtained for selecting a most suitable material for said product,
sending said request to a language model module,
receiving a reply from said language model module, said reply comprising a name of the most suitable material for said product,
for each name of each material of said each component, requesting the life cycle inventory database to send at least one environmental impact value,
receiving from the life cycle inventory database the at least one environmental impact value for said each name of said each material of said each component,
calculating a total environmental impact of the product using the at least one environmental impact value that is received for same each name and their respective mass in the product.
[Emphasis added to show the abstract idea being executed by additional elements that do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea]
This apparatus claim is grouped within the "mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve a series of steps for mathematical calculations to calculate a total environmental impact of the product using at least one environmental impact value, which is a process that is encompassed by the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 is found to recite abstract idea(s).
Step2A – Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of the claims such as life cycle module, life cycle inventory database and language model module merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the life cycle module, life cycle inventory database and language model module performs the steps or functions of mathematical calculations to calculate a total environmental impact of the product using at least one environmental impact value. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer (or technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as life cycle module, life cycle inventory database and language model module) performing functions of determining, obtaining, requesting, receiving, generating, selecting, sending and calculating that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step2B: Does the Claim Amount to Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of life cycle module, life cycle inventory database and language model module being used to perform the steps of determining, obtaining, requesting, receiving, generating, selecting, sending and calculating amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of mathematical calculations to calculate a total environmental impact of the product using at least one environmental impact value. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, life cycle module, life cycle inventory database and language model module performs the steps or functions of mathematical concepts of mathematical calculations to calculate a total environmental impact of the product using at least one environmental impact value. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of mathematical concepts of mathematical calculations to calculate a total environmental impact of the product using at least one environmental impact value because said combination of elements remains disclosed at a high level of generality. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(l)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 describes a system performing the functions of determining, obtaining, requesting, receiving, generating, selecting, sending and calculating relating to mathematical concepts without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a life cycle module, life cycle inventory database and language model module that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of mathematical concepts of mathematical calculations to calculate a total environmental impact of the product using at least one environmental impact value as noted above regarding claim 1. Therefore, this independent claim is also not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15 further describe the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. Dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15 add non-functional descriptive material and respective functions of extracting, receiving, sending, requesting, vectorizing, generating, inserting, selecting and communicate steps that are executed by a life cycle module, life cycle inventory database, language model module, database communication link, language module communication link and as disclosed in independent claims 1 and 9, however these additional steps remain disclosed at a high level of generality and do not amount to more than mere computer implementation of the abstract idea, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15 are also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of these claims on ineligible independent claims 1 and 9 also renders dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15 as not patent eligible.
As a note: Although Independent claim 8 is directed to non-statutory subject matter, if said claim was amended to comprise statutory subject matter, the scope of said claim describes execution of a method for performing the functions of determining, obtaining, requesting, receiving, generating, selecting, sending and calculating relating to mathematical concepts without additional elements beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as a life cycle module, life cycle inventory database and language model module that provide significantly more than the abstract idea of mathematical concepts of mathematical calculations to calculate a total environmental impact of the product using at least one environmental impact value as noted above regarding claim 1. For these reasons as well, this independent claim is also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sousa et al. (US 2008/0319812 A1) in view of Cella et al. (WO 2022/221719 A2).
Regarding Claim 1, 8 and 9, modified Sousa teaches:
A method for determining an environmental impact of a product, said method, implemented by a life cycle module/ A computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry a method for determining an environmental impact of a product, said method, implemented by a life cycle module, said method/ A system for determining an environmental impact of a product, said system comprising: a life cycle module that determines the environmental impact of said product, said life cycle module being configured to (See Sousa ¶ [0020-0021] – computer program executed by a processor, [0036] – A web services framework integrates Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) software technology with existing product design, manufacturing planning, product data management, supply chain management, financial planning, and distribution management tools and [0045] - The AI/recommendations and optimization engine is configured to send and receive information to and from the LCA calculator), comprising:
obtaining a list of components of the product and, for each component of said list of components, a list of type of materials (See Sousa ¶ [0043] – the LCA calculator can receive product information from a bill-of-materials (BOM) [list by example] that can include material types (i.e., name of the material), volume or amount of materials used, and the units, manufacturing processes and additional product system information, such as transportation mode and distances and energy use estimates),
for each type of material/ of said list of type of materials of said each component, requesting a list of materials from a life cycle inventory database and receiving said list of materials from said life cycle inventory database (See Sousa ¶ [0045] – the recommendation engine includes rules and information about materials and their impact on the environment. For example, the recommendation engine can receive the LCA score from the LCA calculator and output a list of alternative materials and amounts and design strategies that can be used in the design),
for each list of materials/ of said list of type of materials that is received, generating a request comprising said list of materials that is obtained for selecting a most suitable material for said product (See Sousa ¶ [0048] – The Sustainable Design Decision Support System provides news, information, best practices [most suitable by example], case studies, and heuristics on life-cycle thinking … the recommendation engine may provide the user with a suggested substitute material to use in a design),
sending said request to a … model module (See Sousa ¶ [0047] – a neural network and mathematical models can perform modeling functions that receive a collection of inputs, perform a computational algorithm, and produce an output with LCA results and other sustainability information),
receiving a reply from said … model module, said reply comprising a name of the most suitable material for said product (See Sousa ¶ [0043] – the LCA calculator can receive product information from a bill-of-materials (BOM) that can include material types (i.e., name of the material), volume or amount of materials used, and the units, manufacturing processes and additional product system information and [0045] - the recommendation engine can receive the LCA score from the LCA calculator and output a list of alternative materials and amounts and design strategies that can be used in the design),
for each name of each material of said each component, requesting the life cycle inventory database to send at least one environmental impact value (See Sousa ¶ [0043] – the LCA calculator can receive product information from a bill-of-materials (BOM) that can include material types (i.e., name of the material) and [0045] - the recommendation engine includes rules and information about materials and their impact on the environment … the recommendation engine can receive the LCA score from the LCA calculator and output a list of alternative materials and amounts and design strategies that can be used in the design),
receiving from the life cycle inventory database the at least one environmental impact value for said each name of said each material of said each component (See Sousa ¶ [0051] – the component impacts can include scores, impacts over lifetime, and effects on impact categories. The lifecycle impacts can include CO2 scores, impacts per phase, and impact categories … the comparison can include images of the product and the reference with an impact reduction percent (%), the respective impacts per functional unit (e.g., Okala millipoints/hour of use), the respective total impacts over the product lifetime, an estimated lifetime, the component with the highest impact factor (e.g., Rotomold HDPE), the most affected impact category (e.g., human toxicity), and the lifecycle phase most impacted by the System Bill Of Materials (SBOM)),
calculating a total environmental impact of the product using the at least one environmental impact value that is received for same each name and their respective mass in the product (It is understood from the specification of the instant application that their respective mass in the product is an amount of material within a product, therefore, see Sousa ¶ [0043] – the LCA calculator can receive product information from a bill-of-materials (BOM) that can include material types (i.e., name of the material), volume or amount of materials used, and the units, manufacturing processes and additional product system information and [0051] – the component impacts can include scores, impacts over lifetime, and effects on impact categories. The lifecycle impacts can include CO2 scores, impacts per phase, and impact categories … the comparison can include … the respective total impacts over the product lifetime, an estimated lifetime, the component with the highest impact factor (e.g., Rotomold HDPE), the most affected impact category (e.g., human toxicity), and the lifecycle phase most impacted by the System Bill Of Materials (SBOM)).
While Sousa teaches an artificial intelligence recommendation engine using neural networks and mathematical models to perform product life cycle analysis to determine an environmental impact of said product based on the materials used in said product (Sousa ¶ [0043], [0045-0047] and [0051]), Sousa does not explicitly teach that said models include a language model. This is taught by Cella (See Cella ¶ [1393] – an instruction set for additive manufacturing may be automatically generated from a text description, such as using a blend of natural language-based artificial intelligence and other artificial intelligence for handling and/or generating images and/or spatial representations, such as using the DALL-E language model from OpenAI™ or other transformer language model (a combination of text-based and image-based models)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in model based life cycle analysis system of Sousa the use of language models as taught by Cella to improve the accuracy of the models (Cella ¶ [0455]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the model based product life cycle analysis system of Sousa.
Regarding Claim 2 and 10, modified Sousa teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the request comprising the list of materials that is received for selecting the most suitable material for said product also comprises one or more of a description of said each material and an activity domain of said each material/ The system according to claim 9, wherein said life cycle module is further configured to insert one or more of a description of said each material and an activity domain of said each material in the request comprising the list of materials that is obtained for selecting the most suitable material for the product (See Sousa ¶ [0050] – the user interface can include a series of screens for creating a new product project… the UI screens can include tab objects configured to present data objects relating to product definition, assessment scope, assessment goals, and access … the product definition tab can include data fields for a product name, a client or division, a product category, and a text box for description … The user may also select lifecycle phases and transportation elements to be included in the assessment [activity domain by example]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sousa teaches:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the description of said each material is a summary (See Sousa ¶ [0051] – the UI screen can include a graphical summary of a comparison, by product component, of the life cycle greenhouse gases impact) …
While Sousa teaches an artificial intelligence recommendation engine using neural networks and mathematical models to perform product life cycle analysis to determine an environmental impact of said product based on the materials used in said product that are described by at least a summary of features relating to said materials (Sousa ¶ [0051] and [0056]), Sousa does not explicitly teach that said summary was obtained by features extraction of a longer text. This is taught by Cella (See Cella ¶ [1064] – machine-based learning capabilities including feature extraction, [1124] - The NLP module may process text to determine a meaning of the text using various NLP techniques (e.g., NLP models, neural networks, and/or the like) and [2368] - The RPA module may validate data by one or more of performing optical character recognition, performing image recognition and/or processing, identifying data stored on webpages, receiving data from a backend database of the external system). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in model based life cycle analysis system of Sousa the use of feature extraction from text data as taught by Cella to improve the accuracy of the models (Cella ¶ [0455]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the model based product life cycle analysis system of Sousa.
Regarding Claim 4 and 11, modified Sousa teaches:
The method/ system according to claim 1 and 9, further comprising, for said obtaining the list of components of the product,
receiving a product name (See Sousa ¶ [0050] – the user interface can include a series of screens for creating a new product project… the UI screens can include tab objects configured to present data objects relating to product definition … the product definition tab can include data fields for a product name),
sending a request to said … model module, said request comprising the product name that is received (See Sousa ¶ [0047] – a neural network and mathematical models can perform modeling functions that receive a collection of inputs, perform a computational algorithm, and produce an output with LCA results and other sustainability information and [0050] – product name),
receiving from the … model module the list of components and for said each component the list of type of materials (See Sousa ¶ [0043] – the LCA calculator can receive product information from a bill-of-materials (BOM) that can include material types (i.e., name of the material), volume or amount of materials used, and the units, manufacturing processes and additional product system information and [0051] – the component impacts can include scores, impacts over lifetime, and effects on impact categories. The lifecycle impacts can include CO2 scores, impacts per phase, and impact categories … the comparison can include images of the product and the reference with an impact reduction percent (%), the respective impacts per functional unit (e.g., Okala millipoints/hour of use), the respective total impacts over the product lifetime, an estimated lifetime, the component with the highest impact factor (e.g., Rotomold HDPE), the most affected impact category (e.g., human toxicity), and the lifecycle phase most impacted by the System Bill Of Materials (SBOM)).
While Sousa teaches an artificial intelligence recommendation engine using neural networks and mathematical models to perform product life cycle analysis to determine an environmental impact of said product based on the materials used in said product (Sousa ¶ [0043], [0045-0047] and [0051]), Sousa does not explicitly teach that said models include a language model. This is taught by Cella (See Cella ¶ [1393] – an instruction set for additive manufacturing may be automatically generated from a text description, such as using a blend of natural language-based artificial intelligence and other artificial intelligence for handling and/or generating images and/or spatial representations, such as using the DALL-E language model from OpenAI™ or other transformer language model (a combination of text-based and image-based models)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in model based life cycle analysis system of Sousa the use of language models as taught by Cella to improve the accuracy of the models (Cella ¶ [0455]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the model based product life cycle analysis system of Sousa.
Regarding Claim 5 and 12, modified Sousa teaches:
The method/ system according to claim 1 and 9, further comprising a preliminary step of receiving the list of components of the product, said list comprising, for said each component, said list of type of materials (See Sousa ¶ [0043] – the LCA calculator can receive product information from a bill-of-materials (BOM) [list by example] that can include material types (i.e., name of the material), volume or amount of materials used, and the units, manufacturing processes and additional product system information and [0051] – The UI can include component impact navigation buttons … the component impacts can include scores, impacts over lifetime, and effects on impact categories … the component with the highest impact factor … and the lifecycle phase most impacted by the System Bill Of Materials (SBOM) [component list by example]).
Regarding Claim 6 and 13, modified Sousa teaches:
The method/ system according to claim 1 and 9, further comprising, when one or several requested types of material are not listed in the life cycle inventory database, requesting said … model module for a similar type of material and requesting a list of materials from the life cycle inventory database for said similar type of material (See Sousa ¶ [0048] – The Sustainable Design Decision Support System provides news, information, best practices, case studies, and heuristics on life-cycle thinking. The social networking system can provide information and education services to educate the users about sustainability, building sustainable products and how the system operates ... the recommendation engine may provide the user with a suggested substitute material to use in a design … the substitute material can be more environmentally friendly than the original material … The KM system can facilitate organization of sustainability data based on product components. The KM system can also include a collection of implementation notes to provide users with information on how to implement a new material or sustainable design strategy).
While Sousa teaches an artificial intelligence recommendation engine using neural networks and mathematical models to perform product life cycle analysis to determine an environmental impact of said product based on the materials used in said product (Sousa ¶ [0043], [0045-0047] and [0051]), Sousa does not explicitly teach that said models include a language model. This is taught by Cella (See Cella ¶ [1393] – an instruction set for additive manufacturing may be automatically generated from a text description, such as using a blend of natural language-based artificial intelligence and other artificial intelligence for handling and/or generating images and/or spatial representations, such as using the DALL-E language model from OpenAI™ or other transformer language model (a combination of text-based and image-based models)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in model based life cycle analysis system of Sousa the use of language models as taught by Cella to improve the accuracy of the models (Cella ¶ [0455]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the model based product life cycle analysis system of Sousa.
Regarding Claim 7 and 14, modified Sousa teaches:
The method/ system according to claim 1 and 9, further comprising … the list of materials that is received from the life cycle inventory database when generating a request comprising said list of materials that is received for said each list of materials that is received (See Sousa ¶ [0043] – The LCA calculator can be configured to process this information and return a sustainability analysis. For example, the LCA calculator can receive product information from a bill-of-materials (BOM) [list by example] that can include material types (i.e., name of the material), volume or amount of materials used, and the units, manufacturing processes and additional product system information and [0045] - the recommendation engine can receive the LCA score from the LCA calculator and output a list of alternative materials and amounts and design strategies that can be used in the design).
While Sousa teaches an artificial intelligence recommendation engine using neural networks and mathematical models to perform product life cycle analysis to determine an environmental impact of said product based on the materials used in said product that are described by at least a summary of features relating to said materials in a list format (Sousa ¶ [0051] and [0056]), Sousa does not explicitly teach that said list is processed by vectorizing. This is taught by Cella (See Cella ¶ [2672] – PMCP and vectorized data processes further enable simple data-informed interactive systems that a user can apply without having to build enormously complex big data engines). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in model based life cycle analysis system of Sousa the use of data vectorization as taught by Cella to improve the accuracy of the models (Cella ¶ [0455]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the model based product life cycle analysis system of Sousa.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Sousa teaches:
The system according to claim 9, said system further comprising said life cycle inventory database and said … model module, wherein said life cycle inventory database is configured to communicate with said life cycle module via a database communication link and said … model module is configured to communicate with said life cycle module via a … model communication link (See Sousa ¶ [0042-0044] – the logic layer can include a social networking system, a knowledge management and collaboration system, an LCA calculator, an AI/recommendation and optimization engine, and a content management system (CMS). In operation, the users are using the system to answer direct LCA questions and perform LCA-centric “what if” scenarios in an effort to design their products more sustainably. The users can access the system through either a rich GUI (e.g., a Rich Internet Application), or via a third-party tool (e.g., a CAD tool such as SolidWorks®, a PDM tool, or other PLM and ERP tools) with a tool specific plug-in. Both the UI and third-party tools are connected to a web services (i.e., a web services API). The LCA calculator can be configured to process this information and return a sustainability analysis … the LCA calculator can receive product information from a bill-of-materials (BOM) [list/ database by example] that can include material types (i.e., name of the material), volume or amount of materials used, and the units, manufacturing processes and additional product system information and [0061] - the user can view information from the logic layer and data layer … the recommendation engine can output a series of links to direct the user to content based on the assessment results).
While Sousa teaches an artificial intelligence recommendation engine using neural networks and mathematical models to perform product life cycle analysis to determine an environmental impact of said product based on the materials used in said product (Sousa ¶ [0043], [0045-0047] and [0051]), Sousa does not explicitly teach that said models include a language model. This is taught by Cella (See Cella ¶ [1393] – an instruction set for additive manufacturing may be automatically generated from a text description, such as using a blend of natural language-based artificial intelligence and other artificial intelligence for handling and/or generating images and/or spatial representations, such as using the DALL-E language model from OpenAI™ or other transformer language model (a combination of text-based and image-based models)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in model based life cycle analysis system of Sousa the use of language models as taught by Cella to improve the accuracy of the models (Cella ¶ [0455]), thereby increasing the accuracy of the model based product life cycle analysis system of Sousa.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW S WERONSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Fahd A. Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/MATTHEW S WERONSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627