DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 13 should have been renumbered 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Steenstra et al. (US 2024/0135291 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Steenstra teaches the invention as claimed including a digital platform for facilitating resource sharing among entities ([0002] The present disclosure relates generally to the automated establishment of digital interactions between network-connected devices of professional entities. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to systems, methods, and devices for identifying technological requirements and facilitating collaboration between entities to address those requirements.; [0066] user interface 310 may allow a user to specify solutions to the technological need that are offered as a service, as a software platform, through collaborative efforts), comprising:
a user interface accessible by entities via electronic devices ([0067] FIG. 3B illustrates another example user interface 320 that may be presented to a user for acquiring information about abilities and/or desires of an entity, consistent with some disclosed embodiments. For example, user interface 320 may be used to gather information about an entity to define a set of skills associated with an entity, which may be used to assess an ability of a user to contribute to achieving a goal, as described further below. Alternatively or additionally, user interface 320 may be used to gather information defining technological needs of an entity, which may be used to classify and address the needs of the entity.);
a database for storing information related to underutilized resources of the entities ([0076] As shown in FIG. 4A, data structure 400 may include additional information, such as a location 406, an indication of associated entities 408, or various other forms of information. In some embodiments, the various forms of information described above may be split into subcategories. For example, the data structure may store indications of entities experiencing an unmet technological need separately from entities having a skill for resolving an unmet technological need. Accordingly, entities 408 represented in data structure 400 may be split into multiple columns. It is to be understood that the various forms of information shown in FIG. 4A and described above are provided by way of example, and that data structure 400 may include any form of information associated with an unmet technological need, including but not limited to any of the various types of information described throughout the present disclosure. In some embodiments, data structure 400 may be stored in a database, such as database 112 described above.);
a search engine configured to facilitate discovery of underutilized resources based on specified criteria ([0080] Some disclosed embodiments may involve receiving a query, which may be associated with an unmet technological need. The query may be any event triggering identification of one or more unmet technological needs within the data structure. In some embodiments, the query may be initiated by a user. A query may be received in any electronic manner, such as in the form of signals transmitted over a network. For example, receiving the query may include receiving an input from a user through a user interface via computing device 120, which may generate a signal indicating the user input and transmit the signal to server 110. Server 110 may then parse the received signal to receive an indication of the input. In some embodiments, receiving the query may include receiving a text-based input, for example through field 422 or a similar field. For example, the text-based input may be a search term or phrase, a selected keyword, or the like… FIG. 4D illustrates an example user interface 430 through which a user may submit a query consistent with the disclosed embodiments. In this example, user interface 430 may include a text field 432 which may allow a user to enter one or more search terms, as shown in FIG. 4D. Another example may include a voice- or video-based input, which may include a search term or phrase, a selected keyword, or the like.); and
a collaboration module enabling entities to establish resource sharing agreements and engage in collaborative projects pertaining to at least one of knowledge ([0230] Some disclosed embodiments may involve accessing terms of a collaborative smart contract between at least two previously unconnected entities. A collaborative smart contract may refer to a smart contract that one or more entities can influence or contribute to. For example, a smart contract may include a specifiable time limit for completing a task. In this example, the smart contract may be collaborative by allowing one or more entities to specify the time limit to be four days. As another example, the smart contract may be a contract in which a first entity is responsible for completing some specified tasks and a second entity is responsible for completing other specified tasks. Accordingly, the two entities may collaborate to reach a goal. Terms of a collaborative smart contract include any provision forming part of the collaborative smart contract. For example, the terms may include an acceleration clause, each party's duties, methods of acceptance, an arbitration clause, conditions for performance, consideration, damages, and indemnification. Previously unconnected entities include entities that were not previously in a relationship with one another, such as a business relationship. In some embodiments, previously unconnected entities may not know each other's identities. In other embodiments, previously unconnected entities may know each other's identities. As an example, previously unconnected entities may include a researcher that did not previously have a business relationship with a research clinic. In some embodiments, previously unconnected entities may refer to entities that were not previously introduced or were not aware of each other, entities that work in different organizations (e.g., companies, etc.), entities from different departments, entities that have not yet worked together, or any entities that have not engaged with each other in some form. The unconnected entities may be joined together by contract based on an identified need of one contracting entity and an identified skill, interest, or ability to fulfill that need by another contracting entity. The match can be made by scraping the Internet to identify the entity with the need and the entity with the skill, interest, or ability to fulfill that need. Thus, two entities, who might not know each other and who might never have had opportunity to know each other might be joined together by contract.; [0236] The two or more previously unconnected entities may provide an electronic signature or other indication that they agree to be bound to the terms of the contract.; [0355] wherein the suggested action includes executing at least one of an electronic nondisclosure agreement or an electronic engagement contract), byproducts, waste, and surplus.
Regarding claim 2, Steenstra teaches wherein the underutilized resources comprise raw materials, equipment, facilities, expertise ([0067] For example, user interface 320 may be used to gather information about an entity to define a set of skills associated with an entity, which may be used to assess an ability of a user to contribute to achieving a goal, as described further below.; [0156] The scraping may also identify… people with expertise in applying the product), or capacity.
Regarding claim 3, Steenstra teaches further comprising:
an analytics module for tracking and analyzing environmental performance of entities participating in resource sharing; and a reporting module for generating reports and providing insights on resource utilization and sustainability metrics ([0132]; [0156] As another potential use case, process 700 may be applied in the agriculture industry to prepare for growing a new crop. For example, a farm may be planning to grow a new crop intended for human consumption and therefore should not be in contact with harmful chemicals. Accordingly, an unmet technological need may be defined as a solution to protect the crop from a variety of pests, with strict requirements for the method to be safe for the consumption of the product and environmentally friendly.; [0239] Some disclosed embodiments may involve remotely monitoring, over at least one network, activity of the first entity in the first venue to track progress of the first entity in satisfying a first portion of the success criteria associated with the first entity. Activity of an entity may include any form of behavior, input, interaction, movement, or any other action or state associated with an entity.).
Regarding claim 5, Steenstra teaches wherein the reporting module generates reports on resource utilization efficiency, sustainability performance, environmental benchmarks, or recommendations for improvement ([0244] The activity of the first entity and the second entity may be monitored in various other ways, such as reporting from the first entity and second entity, receiving feedback or information from a third party, tracking progress indicated in a database or data structure, tracking data recorded in blocks in a blockchain, or any other methods for tracking progress electronically. An example may include analyzing peer review and discussing the conclusion of a specific result as an indication for completing a particular test.; [0492] analyzing the identified at least one solution, and the at least one of the scraped proof of concept, the scraped degree of safety, the scraped economic feasibility, or the scraped commercial applicability to thereby recommend implementation of at least one specific solution from the identified at least one solution.).
Regarding claim 6, Steenstra teaches further comprising a communication module enabling entities to communicate, negotiate, and coordinate resource sharing activities (Fig. 3a-b; [0002] [0219] For example, this may include adding the entities to a chat, a discussion board, or other form of communication-based group so that the entities may communicate with each other.).
Regarding claim 7, Steenstra teaches wherein the communication module facilitates real-time messaging, negotiation, and coordination of resource sharing activities among entities ([0219]).
Regarding claim 8, Steenstra teaches wherein the communication module supports file sharing, document collaboration, and scheduling of resource sharing activities among entities ([0231] In some embodiments, the at least two previously unconnected entities may include a first entity and a second entity respectively located in a first venue and in a second venue. A venue may include a locale, place, setting, site, address, or any other location. For examples, a first entity located in first venue may include a company located in Los Angeles, California, while a second entity located in a second venue may include a company located in Washington, D.C. As another example, a venue may refer to a particular computer-based platform, network, or environment. For example, the first and second venues may refer to different collaboration software platforms and the smart contract may allow the entities to collaborate across different platforms. In some embodiments, the collaborative smart contract may define a plurality of success criteria for resolving an unmet technological need shared by the first entity and the second entity. Success criteria for resolving an unmet technological need may include any standards or levels by which to judge whether an objective, goal, target, or outcome associated with the unmet technological need has been achieved or was sufficiently successful. For example, a technological need may include a need to complete the enrollment for asthma related clinical trial in undeserved community and the need may be unmet in that the clinical trial has not yet been completed. In this example, success criteria for resolving the unmet technological need may include completing a variety of tasks, collecting specified data, and providing the collected data in a specified format.).
Regarding claim 10, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 13 (should have been 11), it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 12, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 13, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 14, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 17, Steenstra teaches further comprising the step of validating the availability and suitability of underutilized resources before establishing resource sharing agreements ([0159] For example, this may include identifying entities having roles or skills suitable for collaborating to resolve an unmet technological need.; [0209] The collaboration rule may be able to determine a person or entity by searching through the electronic data source for specific skill sets or roles that may be previously identified during the formation of the collaboration rule. In embodiments where the electronic data source is accessed through scraping the Internet, identifying the at least two entities may include scraping the Internet to identify the at least two entities. For example, this may include scraping social media platforms, professional directories, professional publications, or various other sources as described above (e.g., Upwork™, Uber™, MTurks™, and many more) to identify entities that have skills or roles similar to the prior skills and/or roles used to achieve the prior solution. Two, three, four, or any suitable number of entities may be identified, which may depend on the particular implementation or unmet technological need.).
18. The method of claim 10, further comprising the step of monitoring resource utilization and waste reduction metrics to measure the environmental impact of resource sharing activities.
Regarding claim 19, Steenstra teaches further comprising the step of analyzing collaboration patterns and outcomes to identify opportunities for innovation and process improvement ([0227] monitoring performance according to an agreement, such as a smart contract, and providing recommendations based on various stages of progress.).
Regarding claim 20, Steenstra teaches further comprising the step of sending notifications and alerts to entities regarding new underutilized resources, collaboration opportunities ([0067] For example, user interface 320 may be used to gather information about an entity to define a set of skills associated with an entity, which may be used to assess an ability of a user to contribute to achieving a goal,; Fig. 3A-B), and feedback received ([0137-138]).
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 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steenstra as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in further view of Brownley et al. (US 20140019295 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Steenstra teaches a feedback system for given solutions, see at least [0137] and [0138] but Steenstra does not explicitly teach further comprising a feedback and rating system allowing entities to provide feedback and rate a quality of shared resources and collaboration experiences.
However, Brownley teaches further comprising a feedback and rating system allowing entities to provide feedback and rate a quality of shared resources and collaboration experiences ([0059] Turning now to FIG. 6, the supplier entity selection and feedback logic 60 allows a buyer entity to select a supplier entity, engage the supplier entity in a commercial transaction, and then provide supplier entity feedback data indicating information about the supplier entity, its ability to handle the transaction, or any pertinent assessment information that may be of benefit to other buyer entities regarding this particular supplier entity. The operations of FIG. 6 may be implemented by the supplier entity selection and feedback logic 60 using any suitable form of user interface processing, such as an interactive web page or a series of such web pages presented via the buyer user interface 8 of the system 2 (see FIG. 1).; [0062]; [0063] The supplier entity feedback information may include various kinds of feedback. For example, it may include supplier entity rating information based on a standardized rating system. Various categories of supplier entity performance may be rated, including but not limited to quotation/price discrepancies, quality problems, delivery delays, etc. The supplier entity rating information may also include non-categorized information relating to the buyer entity's experience with the supplier entity with respect to various aspects of the supplier entity's performance in connection with one or more transactions. To provide context, details of such transactions may be included in the supplier entity feedback information. An overall assessment of supplier entity capabilities may also be provided.; [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brownley of providing feedback to a supplier after a service has been rendered with the teachings of Steenstra of a digital platform to collaborate with different entities for services. The modification would have been motivated by the desire of informing future buyers of suppliers past performance.
Regarding claim 15, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 16, Brownley teaches wherein the feedback and rating system allows entities to rate the reliability, responsiveness, and overall satisfaction with shared resources and collaboration experiences ([0063] The supplier entity feedback information may include various kinds of feedback. For example, it may include supplier entity rating information based on a standardized rating system. Various categories of supplier entity performance may be rated, including but not limited to quotation/price discrepancies, quality problems, delivery delays, etc. The supplier entity rating information may also include non-categorized information relating to the buyer entity's experience with the supplier entity with respect to various aspects of the supplier entity's performance in connection with one or more transactions. To provide context, details of such transactions may be included in the supplier entity feedback information. An overall assessment of supplier entity capabilities may also be provided.; [0064] In order to render the supplier entity feedback information more meaningful, the information may further include buyer entity criteria that indicates what may have motivated the buyer entity to engage the supplier entity, and to what extent that the buyer entity's objectives were met.).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steenstra as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in further view of Luke et al. (US 2014/0317598 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Steenstra does not expressly teach wherein the analytics module tracks and analyzes metrics related to waste reduction, energy consumption, carbon footprint, or environmental impact.
However, Luke teaches wherein the analytics module tracks and analyzes metrics related to waste reduction (Abstract: A computer analyzes application lifecycle management data to calculate waste and inefficiency… The computer calculates lag time between the time stamps of the ALM data. The lag times measure the timeliness of collaboration and communication within a software development project, and based on the calculated lag times or averages, the computer generates visualizations including value steam maps, lag time visualizations or waste reduction visualizations. These visualizations can monitor the performance of a team or can be used to compare the performance of multiple teams throughout a software development project.; [0024]), energy consumption, carbon footprint, or environmental impact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Luke with the teachings of Steenstra to monitor waste reduction in a collaborative environment. The modification would have been motivated because by monitoring the lag time resultant from the handoff of information from one workflow artifact to another, or resultant from delays during the performance of a single workflow artifact, inefficiencies can be found and corrected (See Luke’s [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Luke teaches further comprising the step of monitoring resource utilization and waste reduction metrics to measure the environmental impact of resource sharing activities (Abstract; [0024]; [0027] Software development projects are often very large and very complex involving collaboration and communication between a large number of people, departments, groups, or teams (generally referred to herein as "teams"). Often these teams operate remotely, residing in different buildings, locations, or countries. A single software development project can span numerous teams across numerous locations. One team may be developing requirements while another team in another location is developing plan items, and a third team is writing test scripts in another country. Inefficiency and waste are introduced to the software development project as a result of the numerous information hand-offs required between the variety of teams and the variety of locations. Inefficiency and waste increase as the size and the scope of the project increase. It is management's responsibility to monitor the schedule and progress of the software development project, and a manager will typically monitor multiple development projects running concurrently. In this large and diverse software development environment, the efficiency or timeliness of communication and collaboration between people, departments, groups, or teams can be measured by the lag time introduced to the schedule. By monitoring the lag time resultant from the handoff of information from one workflow artifact to another, or resultant from delays during the performance of a single workflow artifact, inefficiencies can be found and corrected.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA whose telephone number is (571)270-0692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee J Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights