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 .
Examiner’s note
Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer program product have computer readable storage medium. The claims are statutory because applicant has signals from the definition have computer readable storage medium.
See Specification: [0019]…..A computer-readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media”
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Warther et al. ( US patent publication: US 20100030601 A1, “Warther”) in view of Ryan et al. ( US patent Publication: US 20250200480, “Ryan”)
Regarding claim 9, Warther teaches, A computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations (“[0049] An apparatus for evaluating sustainability of a product may be provided comprising a memory, and at least one processor coupled to the memory and operative to: defining a product within a product family wherein products perform equivalent functions; defining a set of environmental, social, and economic criteria; selecting a product from said product family as a baseline for comparison; and scoring said product compared to said baseline for each of said criteria”) . comprising:
accessing a sustainability assessment tool, (“[0018] As illustrated in FIG. 1, an embodiment of the method of the present invention includes the following steps. First, a product family is defined 200. The tool allows comparing products that perform equivalent functions”)
receiving input data for an alternative option related to a plurality of sustainability categories; ( Fig.1 step 200 “ [0018] As illustrated in FIG. 1, an embodiment of the method of the present invention includes the following steps. First, a product family is defined 200. The tool allows comparing products that perform equivalent functions and which are therefore grouped in a same product family.” Fig. 1 step 202, “ A set of environmental, social, and economic criteria is defined 202”)
integrating the input data into a framework comprising a plurality of sustainability sub-categories; (“[0024] For the reference flow of each product the assessment is carried out for all defined criteria (see examples in the tables illustrated in FIGS. 2A to 2F)” Fig. 2A to 2F displays for each category there are subcategories, For example Fig.2E and 2E continued, For economic category, there are five subcategories”) has
analyzing the input data and identifying relative risks and benefits associated with the alternative option in comparison with a baseline option; ( Fig.1 step 204, 205 and 206” [0018]…“ A baseline product from the same product family is selected as a "baseline" 204. All other products are compared against it. All scoring is relative to the baseline. A product being compared is assigned a score 206 in comparison to the baseline product for each criterion or the aggregated representation of each criterion (in the case of some quantitative criteria).” ) and
generating comparative visual outputs to visually represent the relative sustainability risks and benefits of the alternative option. (Fig. 6 displays comparative visualizing outputs (compared with baseline. “ [0040] An example for the results of the scoring for selected criteria (environmental, social, economic) is given in FIG. 4. Specific weaknesses (hot-spots), i.e. where the product score is `-2` in this embodiment or strengths (product score is `+2`) are preferably shown in color or otherwise prominently displayed for easy consideration by the user.”)
Doesn’t expressly teach, wherein the sustainability assessment tool includes pre-defined templates to guide users through structured sustainability questions;
However, Ryan teaches, a sustainability assessment tool includes pre-defined templates to guide users through structured sustainability questions; (“[0061] The data collection module 220 may identify relevant entities and generate the data collection request 130, transmit the data collection request 130, and collect all relevant data (the collected data 135) from the one or more entities 140. For example, the data collection module 220 may determine one or more entities 140 to contact, e.g., based on the request 115. The data collection module 220 may generate a data collection request 130, as depicted in FIG. 1A among others. For example, the data collection module 220 may generate a targeted data collection request for the one or more entities 140. The data collection module 220 may transmit the data collection request 130, e.g., to the one or more entities 140. The data collection module 220 may collect data, e.g., from the one or more entities 140. In some examples, the data provider 152 or the client 110 may submit a template, which may be specific to the request 115, e.g., a particular type of certification, that indicates what information should to be collected, who to collect the information from (name, phone number, email, and the like), and/or when the information should be collected by. Data collection module 220 may process the submitted template, compile information required from each individual party, and aggregate the data requests so the one or more entities 140 receives a single data collection request 130 for one or more products at a time. In some cases, data collection module 220 may throttle the data collection request 130 to individuals so only limited information is requested at one time. Data collection module 220 handles reaching back out for additional data collection request 130 to these same individuals until all data is collected.”)
Warther and Ryan are analogous as they are from the field of sustainability tool.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Warther to have included pre-defined templates to guide users through structured sustainability questions as taught by Ryan.
The motivation to include the modification is to collect structured input data interactively.
Claim 1 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 9 and therefore claim 1 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 15 is directed to a computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable medium (Warther, “[0049] An apparatus for evaluating sustainability of a product may be provided comprising a memory, and at least one processor coupled to the memory and operative to: defining a product within a product family wherein products perform equivalent functions; defining a set of environmental, social, and economic criteria; selecting a product from said product family as a baseline for comparison; and scoring said product compared to said baseline for each of said criteria”) . and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 9 and therefore claim 15 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16, Warther as modified by Ryan teaches, wherein the plurality of sustainability categories comprises environmental, social, and economic sustainability categories. ( Warther fig. 1 step 202, “ A set of environmental, social, and economic criteria is defined 202”)
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 17, Warther as modified by Ryan teaches,. wherein the alternative option comprises new technologies, new manufacturing, new engineering processes, or new planning directives. (Warther “[0048] The method and tool/system of the present invention may be used by various types of users, such as product development, sales and marketing, procurement, management, etc. For product development, the method and tool can be used in a stage or phase gate or similar process (innovation, identification of needed or desired changes, anticipation of risks and opportunities for new products, improvement of existing products, etc).”).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18, Warther as modified by Ryan teaches, wherein the baseline option comprises existing technologies, existing manufacturing processes, existing engineering processes or existing planning directives. (Warther “[0022] For each product family, one or more baselines are defined, each with a quantified value (reference flow) that represents the function in a quantified form. (e. g. packaging of 0.5 liters of carbonated beverage).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 19, Warther as modified by Ryan teaches, displaying the comparative visual outputs using the sustainability assessment tool. (Warther Fig. 6 displays comparative visualizing outputs (compared with baseline. “ [0040] An example for the results of the scoring for selected criteria (environmental, social, economic) is given in FIG. 4. Specific weaknesses (hot-spots), i.e. where the product score is `-2` in this embodiment or strengths (product score is `+2`) are preferably shown in color or otherwise prominently displayed for easy consideration by the user.”)
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Warther as modified by Ryan teaches, wherein the comparative visual outputs include charts and graphs to visually represent the relative sustainability risks and benefits of the alternative option. (Warther Fig. 6 displays comparative visualizing outputs (compared with baseline. Risk and benefit can be understood based on positive value and negative values of score respectively)
Regarding claim 7, Warther as modified by Ryan teaches, wherein the visual outputs include stoplight charts or comparative bar graphs to communicate sustainability risks and benefits of the alternative option. (Warther Fig. 6 displays comparative visualizing outputs (compared with baseline. Risk and benefit can be understood based on positive value and negative values of score respectively)
Regarding claim 8, Warther as modified by Ryan teaches, linking the sustainability assessment tool with external databases to import data relevant to the
environmental, social, and economic categories. { Warther “[0026].... This data is then linked to databases that deliver impact category indicator results for all inputs and outputs or the corresponding processes. The databases contain life cycle impact category indicator results based on life cycle inventories [ISO 14040: 2006] for the production of the different inputs and generation of the different outputs as well as for specific processes (e. g. waste treatment of a particular plastic material”).
Regarding claim 20, Warther as modified by Ryan teaches wherein the sustainability assessment tool is linked with external databases to import data relevant to sustainability categories. { Warther “[0026].... This data is then linked to databases that deliver impact category indicator results for all inputs and outputs or the corresponding processes. The databases contain life cycle impact category indicator results based on life cycle inventories [ISO 14040: 2006] for the production of the different inputs and generation of the different outputs as well as for specific processes (e. g. waste treatment of a particular plastic material”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights