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 . Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant, on 01/14/2026, amended claims cancelled claims 4 and 13, and added claims 21-22. Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the claims are not a series of generic evaluative steps capable of being performed in the human mind and exceeds human mental capacity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the steps of receiving user input of a product description, categorize the data using a tier taxonomic hierarchy, storing the data, generating recommended actions, generating a sustainability statement, and outputting the sustainability statement all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Applicant contends the claims are not directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity as the claims do not merely state a business objective.
Examiner respectfully disagree and points to the applicant’s specification, [03] as the claims recite methods for “managing sustainability goals” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation is at least commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Applicant contends that the claims produce a concrete, machine-generated output used to drive organizational action. Applicant also contends that the claims do not reside on generic hardware but specific tiered sustainability data model. Applicant contends that the claims recite meaningful constraints on how the system operates, data is structured, and how outputs are generated.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements as recited are computing system; memory storing; and processing circuitry configured to: receive user input. Examiner further points to the applicant specification wherein the computing system is described as a general purpose computing system (Specification, [60]; “Components of computing system 200 can be included in one or more personal computers, server computers, tablet computers, home-entertainment computers, network computing devices, video game devices, mobile computing devices, mobile communication devices (e.g., smartphone), and/or other computing devices…”). The claims recite mental processes and further certain methods of organizing human activity which is performed using a general purpose computing device (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The 101 rejection is updated and maintained below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Knight does not teach sustainability metrics but merely teaches route optimization.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Knight teaches a method of determining efficient routes for shoppers which include “robot(s) or other autonomous device enabled to fulfill orders received by the online concierge system” (Knight, [38]). Examiner notes that even if Knight were to merely teach routing human shoppers under the broadest reasonable interpretation determining route efficiency would be a sustainability metric. Lastly Examiner points to the Applicant’s specification wherein route optimization is as a recommended action. (Applicant Specification, [42-43]; “To work towards this ambitious target 44e, the data model 28 can generate several recommended actions. One such action 46e involves the adoption of more efficient transportation modes. For instance, transitioning from road transport to rail or sea freight, where feasible, can significantly reduce emissions due to the higher efficiency of these modes over longer distances… Other recommended actions generated by the data model 28 can include the optimization of logistics and distribution networks. This could involve route optimization to reduce the distance traveled and the implementation of more efficient load planning to ensure that vehicles operate at full capacity, thereby reducing the number of trips required.
Applicant contends that the combination of Hebets would render Knight inoperable as using sustainability categories would change the principle operation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hebets is in the analogous art category of data categorizing and the motivation for combination can be seen below. Further supplementing the sustainability categories to the system of Knight could provide many useful sustainability categories such as route optimization for cost, route optimization for fuel, route optimization for fewest shoppers, etc.
The 103 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding independent claims, (additional elements bolded)
A computing system for visualizing sustainability goals, comprising: memory storing a data model comprising a tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories; and/A method for visualizing sustainability goals, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to: receive user input of a product description for a product;
categorize the product description using a tiered taxonomic hierarchy corresponding to the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories;
store the product description in the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories of the data model;
generate at least one recommended action based on the data model and the user input;
generate a sustainability statement indicating the at least one recommended action; and
output the sustainability statement for visualizing the sustainability goals,
wherein the data model provides for a nesting of product description records within tiers of the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories
the tiers of the data model include a plurality of themes, each of the plurality of themes including a plurality of capability categories, and each of the plurality of capability categories including a plurality of consideration categories; and
the at least one recommended action is an organizational intervention.
Regarding Claim(s) 19, A computing system for visualizing sustainability goals, comprising: memory storing a data model comprising a tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories; and
processing circuitry configured to: receive user input of a product description for a product;
categorize the product description using a tiered taxonomic hierarchy corresponding to the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories;
store the product description in the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories of the data model;
generate at least one recommended action based on the data model and the user input;
generate a sustainability statement indicating the at least one recommended action; and
output the sustainability statement for visualizing the sustainability goals,
wherein the sustainability statement is formatted as a matrix representing sustainability metrics organized into executable actions, the matrix visually representing the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories
the tiers of the data model include a plurality of themes, each of the plurality of themes including a plurality of capability categories, and each of the plurality of capability categories including a plurality of consideration categories; and
the at least one recommended action is an organizational intervention.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards categorizing product data, store product data, generate a recommendation, generate a sustainability statement, and output the sustainability data all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards managing sustainability goals in an organization (See Specification, [03]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least an A computing system; memory storing; and processing circuitry configured to: receive user input. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, 3-7, 11, 12, 14-16, and 21 the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, 17, and 20, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of user input is inputted into a user interface configured to display. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, 18, and 22, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of SQL database. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 14-15, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 20240005269 A1) in view of Hebets et al. (US 20220405590 A1), and Levin et al. (US 20240193622 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 1 and 10, Knight teaches: A computing system for visualizing sustainability goals, comprising: memory storing a data model comprising a tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories; and (Knight, [52]; the inventory management engine 302 may apply a trained classification module to an item catalog received from the warehouse 210, such that application of the trained classification model associates specific items with product categories corresponding to levels within the taxonomy and Knight, [96]; In one embodiment, a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium containing computer program code, which can be executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or processes described).
processing circuitry configured to: receive user input of a product description for a product; (Knight, [30]; The client devices 110 are one or more computing devices capable of receiving user input as well as transmitting and/or receiving data via the network 120 and Knight, [76]; an ordering interface 402, which provides an interactive interface with which the user 104 can browse through and select products and place an order. The CMA 206 also includes a system communication interface 404 which, among other functions, receives inventory information from the online concierge system 102 and transmits order information to the system 202. The CMA 206 also includes a preferences management interface 406 which allows the user 104 to manage basic information associated with his/her account, such as his/her home address and payment instruments. The preferences management interface 406 may also allow the user to manage other details such as his/her favorite or preferred warehouses 210, preferred delivery times, special instructions for delivery, and so on and Knight, [05]; To infer the most efficient pick path through a warehouse, historical pick data for items picked in the warehouse is obtained. The historical pick data includes data for past orders fulfilled at the warehouse, including product data for each of the items picked and pick times between each of the items picked). Examiner interprets the product name in the order as the product description data.
categorize the product description using a tiered taxonomic hierarchy corresponding to the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories; (Knight, [05]; The taxonomy identifies a plurality of product categories structured in a hierarchy, where each level of the hierarchy corresponds to a particular level of granularity of product data. For example, certain types of product data may correspond to a product category that applies to an entire department of the warehouse (e.g., produce department, frozen foods department, seafood department, etc.), to a particular aisle within a department (e.g., vegetable aisle, fruit aisle, frozen pizza aisle, etc.), or to a specific section of an aisle (e.g., carrots, strawberries, avocados, etc.), and so on. Using the historical pick data, pairwise relations between product categories at each level of the hierarchy are calculated, generated, or predicted using machine learning and used to generate sequences of product categories for each level).
store the product description in the tiered hierarchy of… categories of the data model; (Knight, [74]; The final sequence at the end of the process is stored in category sequences 316. In embodiments, the sequence building process is repeated for each level of the taxonomy's hierarchy. Upon building a first category sequence for a warehouse, the sequence generation engine 318 may select another level in the hierarchy, determine a seed, and repeat the process of iterating through shortest distance product categories to build the next category sequence for the warehouse).
generate at least one recommended action based on the data model and the user input; (Knight, [30]; The client devices 110 are one or more computing devices capable of receiving user input as well as transmitting and/or receiving data via the network 120. In one embodiment, a client device 110 is a computer system, such as a desktop or a laptop computer and Knight, [40]; A “pick sequence” may refer to a recommended sequence for picking items ordered by one or more users 204, such as a ranking of each item from first to last. By picking the items in the recommended sequence, the shopper 208 is able to take an efficient route through a warehouse 210 and fulfill a received order quickly, even when the shopper 208 may not know the layout of the warehouse 210 or the location of specific items in the order. For each item in an order, product data may be identified, including product categories that the item is associated with and Knight, [53]; an order fulfillment engine 306 which is configured to synthesize and display an ordering interface to each user 204 (for example, via the customer mobile application 206). Each user 204 uses the ordering interface to place an order for items offered at a warehouse 210. The order is received by the online concierge system 102 for further processing).
generate a sustainability statement indicating the at least one recommended action; and (Knight, [40]; To recommend an efficient route to the shopper 208, embodiments provide the shopper 208 with a pick sequence for the order through the shopper mobile application 212. A “pick sequence” may refer to a recommended sequence for picking items ordered by one or more users 204, such as a ranking of each item from first to last and Knight, [75]; In embodiments, sequence generation engine 318 may further generate pick sequences for orders received through order fulfillment engine 306. The pick sequence may be provided to a shopper 208 via shopper management engine 310. Orders received through order fulfillment engine 306 may be compared to one or more category sequences 316 to generate the pick sequences for the orders).
output the sustainability statement for visualizing the sustainability goals, (Knight, [75]; In embodiments, sequence generation engine 318 may further generate pick sequences for orders received through order fulfillment engine 306. The pick sequence may be provided to a shopper 208 via shopper management engine 310. Orders received through order fulfillment engine 306 may be compared to one or more category sequences 316 to generate the pick sequences for the orders).
wherein the data model provides for a nesting of product description records within tiers of the tiered hierarchy of… categories. (Knight, [40]; To recommend an efficient route to the shopper 208, embodiments provide the shopper 208 with a pick sequence for the order through the shopper mobile application 212. A “pick sequence” may refer to a recommended sequence for picking items ordered by one or more users 204, such as a ranking of each item from first to last and Knight, [50]; In embodiments, the taxonomy is structured as a hierarchy, where different levels in the hierarchy provide different levels of specificity/granularity about items included in the levels. At each level of the hierarchy, items can be grouped into product categories corresponding to product data of varying levels of granularity).
While Knight teaches a plurality of categories, Knight does not appear to teach sustainability categories. However, Knight in view of the analogous art of Hebets (i.e. data categorizing) does teach the entirety of the limitation: (Hebets, [13-14]; the method includes displaying the determined entity sustainability scores for the multiple categories and subcategories on the user interface… In other features, the multiple categories include at least four categories. In other features, the at least four categories include a climate mitigation category, a fair labor category, an animal welfare category, and a land preservation category).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight including a plurality of categories with the teachings of Hebets including sustainability categories in order to provide users with relevant sustainability data to increase consumer satisfaction (Hebets, [03]; Consumers are becoming more and more interested in sustainability practices of companies they purchase products from. However, it is often difficult for individuals to have a clear understanding of how various companies operate regarding different aspects of sustainability practices).
Knight/Hebets teach categories (i.e. themes) and sub-categories (i.e. categories) neither appear to explicitly teach capability categories. However, Knight/Hebets in view of the analogous art of Levin (i.e. data categorization) does teach: the tiers of the data model include a plurality of themes, each of the plurality of themes including a plurality of capability categories, and each of the plurality of capability categories including a plurality of consideration categories and the at least one recommended action is an organizational intervention.. (Levin, [17]; using a sustainability impact matrix to determine, for each category of a plurality of sustainability consideration categories, whether the item satisfies one or more respective qualification criteria associated with the respective category. The sustainability impact matrix defines the plurality of sustainability consideration categories and respective sub-categories of respective ones of the plurality of sustainability consideration categories). Examiner interprets the consideration categories are interpreted as the capability categories. Examiner notes that Knight above is relied upon to teach the recommended action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight/Hebets including a plurality of categories with the teachings of Levin including sustainability categories in order to allow categorize different aspects of manufacturing for a more granular approach such as considering manufacturing of the product (Levin, [10]; In an example embodiment, the item information comprises information regarding the manufacture of the item and the plurality of sustainability consideration categories comprises categories relating to different aspects of the manufacture of the item. and Levin, [51]; In various embodiments, at least a portion of the item information relates to sustainability considerations and/or environmental impact of manufacturing, warehousing and/or transporting, using, maintaining, disposing/recycling the item. In an example embodiment, the sustainability information of the item information corresponding to the item is organized, sectioned, and/or partitioned based on the sustainability consideration categories and/or sub-categories defined by the sustainability impact matrix).
Regarding Claim(s) 3 and 12, Knight/Levin teaches: The computing system of claim 1, wherein the user input includes at least one of a role, the product, a sustainability theme, or a time frame for the product. (Knight, [30]; The client devices 110 are one or more computing devices capable of receiving user input as well as transmitting and/or receiving data via the network 120 and Knight, [76]; an ordering interface 402, which provides an interactive interface with which the user 104 can browse through and select products and place an order. The CMA 206 also includes a system communication interface 404 which, among other functions, receives inventory information from the online concierge system 102 and transmits order information to the system 202. The CMA 206 also includes a preferences management interface 406 which allows the user 104 to manage basic information associated with his/her account, such as his/her home address and payment instruments. The preferences management interface 406 may also allow the user to manage other details such as his/her favorite or preferred warehouses 210, preferred delivery times, special instructions for delivery, and so on and Knight, [05]; To infer the most efficient pick path through a warehouse, historical pick data for items picked in the warehouse is obtained. The historical pick data includes data for past orders fulfilled at the warehouse, including product data for each of the items picked and pick times between each of the items picked). Examiner interprets the product name in the order as the product description data.
Regarding Claim(s) 5 and 14, Knight/Hebets/Levin teaches: The computing system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of themes include at least one of circularity, talent acquisition and retention, environmental responsibility, responsible supply chain, or in-service efficiency enablers. (Hebets, [13-14]; the method includes displaying the determined entity sustainability scores for the multiple categories and subcategories on the user interface… In other features, the multiple categories include at least four categories. In other features, the at least four categories include a climate mitigation category, a fair labor category, an animal welfare category, and a land preservation category).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight including a plurality of categories with the teachings of Hebets including sustainability categories in order to provide users with relevant sustainability data to increase consumer satisfaction (Hebets, [03]; Consumers are becoming more and more interested in sustainability practices of companies they purchase products from. However, it is often difficult for individuals to have a clear understanding of how various companies operate regarding different aspects of sustainability practices).
Regarding Claim(s) 6 and 15, Knight/Hebets/Levin teaches: The computing system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of consideration categories include at least one of material recycling, material reclamation, or waste-to-landfill. (Levin, [51]; Each sustainability consideration category corresponds to a different aspect of manufacturing, warehousing and/or transporting, using, maintaining, disposing/recycling the item. In various embodiments, the different aspects of the manufacturing, warehousing and/or transporting, using, maintaining, disposing/recycling the item are sustainability factors such as raw material type, waste, water usage, chemical usage, energy usage, and/or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight including a plurality of categories with the teachings of Levin including sustainability categories in order to allow users to determine how environmentally friendly products/items are and to understand the impacts of decisions (Levin, [12]; In an example embodiment, the IUI indicates how environmentally friendly the item is via inclusion of the respective graphical element and Levin, [51]; In various embodiments, at least a portion of the item information relates to sustainability considerations and/or environmental impact of manufacturing, warehousing and/or transporting, using, maintaining, disposing/recycling the item. In an example embodiment, the sustainability information of the item information corresponding to the item is organized, sectioned, and/or partitioned based on the sustainability consideration categories and/or sub-categories defined by the sustainability impact matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight/Hebets including a plurality of categories with the teachings of Levin including sustainability categories in order to allow categorize different aspects of manufacturing for a more granular approach such as considering manufacturing of the product (Levin, [10]; In an example embodiment, the item information comprises information regarding the manufacture of the item and the plurality of sustainability consideration categories comprises categories relating to different aspects of the manufacture of the item. and Levin, [51]; In various embodiments, at least a portion of the item information relates to sustainability considerations and/or environmental impact of manufacturing, warehousing and/or transporting, using, maintaining, disposing/recycling the item. In an example embodiment, the sustainability information of the item information corresponding to the item is organized, sectioned, and/or partitioned based on the sustainability consideration categories and/or sub-categories defined by the sustainability impact matrix).
Regarding Claim(s) 7 and 16, While Knight teaches determining recommendations, Knight does not appear to explicitly teach environmental impacts of the recommendations. However, Knight/Hebets does teach: The computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one recommended action includes at least an environmental benefit or an environmental impact. (Hebets, [34]; Example systems may provide the ability to personalize or tailor brand recommendations based on eco values of a user profile, to aggregate user data to provide consumer sentiment reports, to compare similar brands and display similar products to users, to analyze purchasing data to provide relevant product recommendations, etc. and Hebets, [66]; In various implementations, the scoring algorithm may compare entity sustainability data to target metrics in multiple impact areas, within each category. For example, in the climate mitigation category, the scoring algorithm may compare sustainability data for each entity to target metrics in the impact areas of GHC emission reduction, water consumption, water saving technology, water pollution, plastic water pollution, sustainable materials, packaging waste reduction, manufacturing waste reduction, circular business model, recycling, recycling technology, take-back programs, etc. An example of various example target metrics and impact areas for the climate mitigation category are illustrated below in Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight including a plurality of categories with the teachings of Hebets including sustainability categories in order to provide users with relevant sustainability data to increase consumer satisfaction (Hebets, [03]; Consumers are becoming more and more interested in sustainability practices of companies they purchase products from. However, it is often difficult for individuals to have a clear understanding of how various companies operate regarding different aspects of sustainability practices).
Regarding Claim(s) 8 and 17,While Knight teaches user input into a user interface and matrix containing data from a data model, Knight does not appear to teach displaying a matrix. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the user input is inputted into a user interface configured to display a matrix populated by data stored in the data model. (Levin, [134]; In the embodiment corresponding to the example IUI 600, the sustainability impact matrix defines at least four sustainability consideration categories. For example, first graphical element 610A corresponds to the sustainability consideration category Fiber, second graphical element 610B corresponds to the sustainability consideration category Water, third graphical element 610C corresponds to the sustainability consideration category Waste, and fourth graphical element 610D corresponds to the sustainability consideration category Chemicals. Thus the IUI 600 includes at most one graphical element 610 corresponding to each sustainability consideration category defined by the sustainability impact matrix).
It would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to use the displaying of a matrix as taught by Levin and incorporate it into the system of Knight/Hebets since the system already comprises a user interface accept input and provide output and would have performed the same regardless of the type of data to be displayed used and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable expectation of success (categorizing data). (See MPEP2143(E) – Obvious to try rationale).
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 20240005269 A1) in view of Hebets et al. (US 20220405590 A1), Levin et al. (US 20240193622 A1), and Galloway et al. (US 20040194055 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 2 and 11, While Knight/Hebets teaches matrices (Knight, [23]), sustainability categories, sustainability statements, and recommendations, neither appear to explicitly teach: The computing system of claim 1, wherein the sustainability statement is formatted as a matrix representing sustainability metrics organized into executable actions, the matrix visually representing the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories. However, Knight/Hebets in view of the analogous art of Galloway (i.e. data categories) does teach the entirety of the limitation: (Galloway, [140]; Qualitative code metrics obtained are compared with at least one code cost factor matrix. Each code cost factor matrix sets forth factors, comprising the amounts by which the costs of various migration tasks are changed due to the presence of at least one qualitative attribute in the source code of the application to be re-hosted. A code cost factor matrix may conform substantially to that shown in FIG. 15, wherein a qualitative code cost factor .sup.i.kappa..sub.q is shown at the intersection of each row containing a migration task, `i`, and a column containing a qualitative code metric, `q`. Note that a code cost factor matrix may contain code cost factors for more migration tasks than are received in step 14030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight/Hebets including matrices, sustainability categories, and recommendations with the teachings of Galloway including a matrix representing sustainability metrics organized into executable actions in order to have a representation of mitigation actions with an accompanying cost factor (Galloway, [140]; Qualitative code metrics obtained are compared with at least one code cost factor matrix. Each code cost factor matrix sets forth factors, comprising the amounts by which the costs of various migration tasks are changed due to the presence of at least one qualitative attribute in the source code of the application to be re-hosted. A code cost factor matrix may conform substantially to that shown in FIG. 15, wherein a qualitative code cost factor .sup.i.kappa..sub.q is shown at the intersection of each row containing a migration task, `i`, and a column containing a qualitative code metric, `q`. Note that a code cost factor matrix may contain code cost factors for more migration tasks than are received in step 14030).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Knight teaches: A computing system for visualizing sustainability goals, comprising: memory storing a data model comprising a tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories; and (Knight, [52]; the inventory management engine 302 may apply a trained classification module to an item catalog received from the warehouse 210, such that application of the trained classification model associates specific items with product categories corresponding to levels within the taxonomy and Knight, [96]; In one embodiment, a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium containing computer program code, which can be executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or processes described).
processing circuitry configured to: receive user input of a product description for a product; (Knight, [30]; The client devices 110 are one or more computing devices capable of receiving user input as well as transmitting and/or receiving data via the network 120 and Knight, [76]; an ordering interface 402, which provides an interactive interface with which the user 104 can browse through and select products and place an order. The CMA 206 also includes a system communication interface 404 which, among other functions, receives inventory information from the online concierge system 102 and transmits order information to the system 202. The CMA 206 also includes a preferences management interface 406 which allows the user 104 to manage basic information associated with his/her account, such as his/her home address and payment instruments. The preferences management interface 406 may also allow the user to manage other details such as his/her favorite or preferred warehouses 210, preferred delivery times, special instructions for delivery, and so on and Knight, [05]; To infer the most efficient pick path through a warehouse, historical pick data for items picked in the warehouse is obtained. The historical pick data includes data for past orders fulfilled at the warehouse, including product data for each of the items picked and pick times between each of the items picked). Examiner interprets the product name in the order as the product description data.
categorize the product description using a tiered taxonomic hierarchy corresponding to the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories; (Knight, [05]; The taxonomy identifies a plurality of product categories structured in a hierarchy, where each level of the hierarchy corresponds to a particular level of granularity of product data. For example, certain types of product data may correspond to a product category that applies to an entire department of the warehouse (e.g., produce department, frozen foods department, seafood department, etc.), to a particular aisle within a department (e.g., vegetable aisle, fruit aisle, frozen pizza aisle, etc.), or to a specific section of an aisle (e.g., carrots, strawberries, avocados, etc.), and so on. Using the historical pick data, pairwise relations between product categories at each level of the hierarchy are calculated, generated, or predicted using machine learning and used to generate sequences of product categories for each level).
store the product description in the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories of the data model; (Knight, [74]; The final sequence at the end of the process is stored in category sequences 316. In embodiments, the sequence building process is repeated for each level of the taxonomy's hierarchy. Upon building a first category sequence for a warehouse, the sequence generation engine 318 may select another level in the hierarchy, determine a seed, and repeat the process of iterating through shortest distance product categories to build the next category sequence for the warehouse).
generate at least one recommended action based on the data model and the user input; (Knight, [30]; The client devices 110 are one or more computing devices capable of receiving user input as well as transmitting and/or receiving data via the network 120. In one embodiment, a client device 110 is a computer system, such as a desktop or a laptop computer and Knight, [40]; A “pick sequence” may refer to a recommended sequence for picking items ordered by one or more users 204, such as a ranking of each item from first to last. By picking the items in the recommended sequence, the shopper 208 is able to take an efficient route through a warehouse 210 and fulfill a received order quickly, even when the shopper 208 may not know the layout of the warehouse 210 or the location of specific items in the order. For each item in an order, product data may be identified, including product categories that the item is associated with and Knight, [53]; an order fulfillment engine 306 which is configured to synthesize and display an ordering interface to each user 204 (for example, via the customer mobile application 206). Each user 204 uses the ordering interface to place an order for items offered at a warehouse 210. The order is received by the online concierge system 102 for further processing).
generate a sustainability statement indicating the at least one recommended action; and (Knight, [30]; The client devices 110 are one or more computing devices capable of receiving user input as well as transmitting and/or receiving data via the network 120. In one embodiment, a client device 110 is a computer system, such as a desktop or a laptop computer and Knight, [40]; A “pick sequence” may refer to a recommended sequence for picking items ordered by one or more users 204, such as a ranking of each item from first to last. By picking the items in the recommended sequence, the shopper 208 is able to take an efficient route through a warehouse 210 and fulfill a received order quickly, even when the shopper 208 may not know the layout of the warehouse 210 or the location of specific items in the order. For each item in an order, product data may be identified, including product categories that the item is associated with and Knight, [53]; an order fulfillment engine 306 which is configured to synthesize and display an ordering interface to each user 204 (for example, via the customer mobile application 206). Each user 204 uses the ordering interface to place an order for items offered at a warehouse 210. The order is received by the online concierge system 102 for further processing).
output the sustainability statement for visualizing the sustainability goals, (Knight, [75]; In embodiments, sequence generation engine 318 may further generate pick sequences for orders received through order fulfillment engine 306. The pick sequence may be provided to a shopper 208 via shopper management engine 310. Orders received through order fulfillment engine 306 may be compared to one or more category sequences 316 to generate the pick sequences for the orders).
While Knight teaches a plurality of categories, Knight does not appear to teach sustainability categories. However, Knight in view of the analogous art of Hebets (i.e. data categorizing) does teach the entirety of the limitation: (Hebets, [13-14]; the method includes displaying the determined entity sustainability scores for the multiple categories and subcategories on the user interface… In other features, the multiple categories include at least four categories. In other features, the at least four categories include a climate mitigation category, a fair labor category, an animal welfare category, and a land preservation category).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight including a plurality of categories with the teachings of Hebets including sustainability categories in order to provide users with relevant sustainability data to increase consumer satisfaction (Hebets, [03]; Consumers are becoming more and more interested in sustainability practices of companies they purchase products from. However, it is often difficult for individuals to have a clear understanding of how various companies operate regarding different aspects of sustainability practices).
While Knight/Hebets teaches matrices (Knight, [23]), sustainability categories, sustainability statements, and recommendations, neither appear to explicitly teach: The computing system of claim 1, wherein the sustainability statement is formatted as a matrix representing sustainability metrics organized into executable actions, the matrix visually representing the tiered hierarchy of sustainability categories. However, Knight/Hebets in view of the analogous art of Galloway (i.e. data categories) does teach the entirety of the limitation: (Galloway, [140]; Qualitative code metrics obtained are compared with at least one code cost factor matrix. Each code cost factor matrix sets forth factors, comprising the amounts by which the costs of various migration tasks are changed due to the presence of at least one qualitative attribute in the source code of the application to be re-hosted. A code cost factor matrix may conform substantially to that shown in FIG. 15, wherein a qualitative code cost factor .sup.i.kappa..sub.q is shown at the intersection of each row containing a migration task, `i`, and a column containing a qualitative code metric, `q`. Note that a code cost factor matrix may contain code cost factors for more migration tasks than are received in step 14030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight/Hebets including matrices, sustainability categories, and recommendations with the teachings of Galloway including a matrix representing sustainability metrics organized into executable actions in order to have a representation of mitigation actions with an accompanying cost factor (Galloway, [140]; Qualitative code metrics obtained are compared with at least one code cost factor matrix. Each code cost factor matrix sets forth factors, comprising the amounts by which the costs of various migration tasks are changed due to the presence of at least one qualitative attribute in the source code of the application to be re-hosted. A code cost factor matrix may conform substantially to that shown in FIG. 15, wherein a qualitative code cost factor .sup.i.kappa..sub.q is shown at the intersection of each row containing a migration task, `i`, and a column containing a qualitative code metric, `q`. Note that a code cost factor matrix may contain code cost factors for more migration tasks than are received in step 14030).
Knight/Hebets teach categories (i.e. themes) and sub-categories (i.e. categories) neither appear to explicitly teach capability categories. However, Knight/Hebets in view of the analogous art of Levin (i.e. data categorization) does teach: the tiers of the data model include a plurality of themes, each of the plurality of themes including a plurality of capability categories, and each of the plurality of capability categories including a plurality of consideration categories and the at least one recommended action is an organizational intervention.. (Levin, [17]; using a sustainability impact matrix to determine, for each category of a plurality of sustainability consideration categories, whether the item satisfies one or more respective qualification criteria associated with the respective category. The sustainability impact matrix defines the plurality of sustainability consideration categories and respective sub-categories of respective ones of the plurality of sustainability consideration categories). Examiner interprets the consideration categories are interpreted as the capability categories. Examiner notes that Knight above is relied upon to teach the recommended action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight/Hebets including a plurality of categories with the teachings of Levin including sustainability categories in order to allow categorize different aspects of manufacturing for a more granular approach such as considering manufacturing of the product (Levin, [10]; In an example embodiment, the item information comprises information regarding the manufacture of the item and the plurality of sustainability consideration categories comprises categories relating to different aspects of the manufacture of the item. and Levin, [51]; In various embodiments, at least a portion of the item information relates to sustainability considerations and/or environmental impact of manufacturing, warehousing and/or transporting, using, maintaining, disposing/recycling the item. In an example embodiment, the sustainability information of the item information corresponding to the item is organized, sectioned, and/or partitioned based on the sustainability consideration categories and/or sub-categories defined by the sustainability impact matrix).
Regarding Claim(s) 20,While Knight teaches user input into a user interface and matrix containing data from a data model, Knight does not appear to teach displaying a matrix. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the user input is inputted into a user interface configured to display a matrix populated by data stored in the data model. (Levin, [134]; In the embodiment corresponding to the example IUI 600, the sustainability impact matrix defines at least four sustainability consideration categories. For example, first graphical element 610A corresponds to the sustainability consideration category Fiber, second graphical element 610B corresponds to the sustainability consideration category Water, third graphical element 610C corresponds to the sustainability consideration category Waste, and fourth graphical element 610D corresponds to the sustainability consideration category Chemicals. Thus the IUI 600 includes at most one graphical element 610 corresponding to each sustainability consideration category defined by the sustainability impact matrix).
It would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to use the displaying of a matrix as taught by Levin and incorporate it into the system of Knight/Hebets since the system already comprises a user interface accept input and provide output and would have performed the same regardless of the type of data to be displayed used and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable expectation of success (categorizing data). (See MPEP2143(E) – Obvious to try rationale).
Regarding Claim(s) 21, Knight/Hebets/Levin/Galloway teaches: The computing system of claim 19, wherein the user input includes at least one of a role, the product, a sustainability theme, or a time frame for the product. (Knight, [76]; an ordering interface 402, which provides an interactive interface with which the user 104 can browse through and select products and place an order)
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 20240005269 A1) in view of Hebets et al. (US 20220405590 A1), Levin et al. (US 20240193622 A1), and Jones et al. (US 20140258782 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 9 and 18, While Knight/Hebets teaches data models and databases, neither appear to explicitly teach the use of an SQL database. However, Knight/Hebets in view of the analogous art of Jones (i.e. data categorization) does teach: The computing system of claim 1, wherein the data model is an SQL database (Jones, [41]; These may for example include business applications, backup technology, networks, ESX V Center configurations, Windows virtual machines, Windows physical configurations, Linux physical configurations, Linux virtual machines, Sun configurations, HP configurations, AIX configurations, AS/400 configurations, other mainframe configurations, SQL database configurations, and other categories appropriate to the various information technology elements of the production environment 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Knight/Hebets including data models and databases with the teachings of Jones including DQL databases in order to allow for a plurality of configurations depending on needs (Jones, [41]; These may for example include business applications, backup technology, networks, ESX V Center configurations, Windows virtual machines, Windows physical configurations, Linux physical configurations, Linux virtual machines, Sun configurations, HP configurations, AIX configurations, AS/400 configurations, other mainframe configurations, SQL database configurations, and other categories appropriate to the various information technology elements of the production environment 101).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 20240005269 A1) in view of Hebets et al. (US 20220405590 A1), Levin et al. (US 20240193622 A1), Galloway et al. (US 20040194055 A1), and Jones et al. (US 20140258782 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 22, the claim is substantially similar to Claims 9 and 18 and is rejected similarly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights