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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on July 24, 2025. Claims 1, 9 and 15 have been amended, claims 2, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20 have been cancelled.
Currently claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 21 are pending, Claims 1, 9 and 15 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9 and 15 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 21 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments field on July 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 10, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that like the claims in Diamond v. Diehr, the present claims recite specific hardware that controls the temperature of a substance to provide a real and practical effect: The preservation of the vaccine during transport. This is not a field of use, but instead a limitation that uses specific hardware to provide a concrete benefit.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims here are unlike the claims in Diamond v. Diehr.
In Diamond v. Diehr, the Supreme Court confirmed the eligibility of patent claims despite the inclusion of a mathematical formula in a claimed method for molding raw, uncured rubber into cured rubber products. 450 U.S. 175, 177 (1981). The claimed method used the well-known Arrhenius equation to calculate the optimal cure time using, among other variables, the internal temperature of the mold. Id. at 177. The invention improved upon prior art molding methods by constantly measuring the actual temperature inside the mold, constantly recalculating the ideal cure time, and automatically opening the press when the ideal cure time equaled the actual time elapsed, which provided a significant and practical application of the well-known Arrhenius equation and transform uncured synthetic rubber into a new state or thing. See Id. at 184-187. Thus, the claims were patent-eligible because they improved an existing technological process and transformed a particular article to another state or thing.
In contrast, Applicant’s claims recite the limitations of “receiving distribution data for a vaccine, creating a time space network model for tracking the vaccine relative to the constraint for shipment with the refrigerated container, creating a delivery plan by executing an objective function, and controlling a temperature of the vaccine using the refrigerated container responsive to the delivery plan” are directed to a well-known method called “cold chain” for transporting vaccines in temperature-controlled containers. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the method, system and computer program product claims simple recite a method for optimizing distribution of vaccines with shipping requirements. Here, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer (i.e., hardware processor or memory) itself, nor do they effect an improvement to the vaccines or the refrigerated containers. Thus, limiting the use of refrigerated containers for controlling the temperature of the vaccine responsive to the delivery plan does not render the claims patent-eligible. The courts have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Remarks on page 12, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the claims are directed to an improvement to a technology and so any abstract idea is integrated with a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, Applicant neither point out which additional element nor how they improve a technology, but instead, pointed to paragraph 4: “to maintain the temperature of the product being shipped, the product is shipped with a portable refrigerator.”, and paragraph 26: “an orchestration solution for decision making to predict vaccines and satisfy vaccine needs, and can minimize timing deviation from customer request while minimizing the logistics cost.”, which are not improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or other technology.
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant argues that the combination of references fails to address the feature of generating a delivery plan subject to a temperature constraint for a vaccine.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. El-Bakry discloses “an optimization system and method to generate feasible marine transportation and bulk material distribution schedule for a given bulk material supply chain…LNG supply chain design includes but is not limited to making decisions regarding the size and number of berths, size of the fleet or ships, sizes and specifications of individual ships.. A generated delivery plan can also be used as an operational plan for ship scheduling” (see ¶ 2- 6).
El-Bakry does not explicitly disclose the delivery plan subject to a temperature constrain for transporting vaccine; however, Deluca discloses a cloud computing environment for transporting products between locations with cargo containers that include refrigeration units for transporting perishable items such as food items, medical items such as vaccines or organs, chemicals, etc. (see ¶ 12, ¶ 14-17).
In the Remarks on page 15, Applicant argues that El-Bakry and/or Deluca, taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest that each node in the time space network represents a location in time and each arc in the time space network represents a viable flow of the vaccine or a refrigerated container.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. El-Bakry discloses “the time-space expanded network flow model used in the mathematical formulation illustration of the kinds of arcs included in the model equations described in Equations (2)-(9).” (see Fig. 9, ¶ 23, ¶ 119, ¶ 145-154, ¶ 190-191).
Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art, El-Bakry and in view of Deluca teaches the limitation in the form of Applicant claimed.
Besides, the phrase “each node in the time space network represents a location in time and each arc in the time space network represents a viable flow of the vaccine or a refrigerated container” merely defining the “time space network” and “arc in the time space network” are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
In the Remarks on page 15, Applicant argues that the Examiner has failed to establish that the recited costs and constraints of the objective function qualify as [nonfunctional] descriptive matter at all.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. El-Bakry discloses an objective function based on the type of performance measures, including, but not limited to, minimize lost production, minimize stockouts, maximize inventory, minimize transportation cost, minimize the size of fleet… ” (see ¶ 8).
Although El-Bakry does not explicitly include all the similar element names of: a logistic cost for shipping vaccine, a logistic cost for refrigerated containers, a capacity constraint, a balance constraint at a supplier for the refrigerated containers, a balance constraint at a customer for the refrigerated containers, a balance constraint at the supplier for the vaccine, and a balance constraint at the customer for the vaccine. It would have been obvious to substitute these elements in the mathematical model to achieve the same distribution optimization.
With respect to the wherein clause in claim 21, the list of elements are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they only describe the constraints of the objective function and never used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
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, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1, 3-4, 7, 8 and 21 are directed to a method for optimizing distribution of shipping items without tied to a machine in the body for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. However, claims 1, 3-4, 7, 8 and 21 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution. Claims 9, 11 and 12 are directed to a system comprising a hardware processor and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine; and claims 15, 17 and 18 are directed to a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium (not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, see ¶ 85) having computer readable program code, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
With respect to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 8 and 21, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims are directed to a method without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55.
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method claims as representative, claim 1 recites the limitations of “receiving distribution data for a vaccine, creating a time space network model for tracking the vaccine relative to the constraint for shipment with the refrigerated container, generating a delivery plan and minimizing the objective function, controlling a temperature of the vaccine using the refrigerated containers responsive to the delivery plan, and delivering the vaccines coordinated with the refrigerated containers to a delivery point”, and the dependent claims further characterize the attributes of the limitations recited in claim 1, including “retaining the refrigerated container at a supplier location across multiple nodes of time, receiving a master vaccine container plan and a vaccine stock and production plan”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are methods of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions in supply chain management, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of a cloud system in a cloud computing environment does not take claim limitations out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis proceed to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 did not recite an additional element in the claim for performing the steps. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require a machine to perform the steps. Even if claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a hardware processor” and “a memory” as recited in claim 9 for performing the steps. The Specification describes “the term ‘hardware processor subsystem’ or ‘hardware processor’ can refer to a processor, memory, software or combinations thereof that cooperate to perform one or more specific tasks…the hardware processor subsystem can include one or more data processing elements (e.g., logic circuits, processing circuits, instruction execution devices, etc.)” (see Spec ¶ 70). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. Thus, using the generic computer components for performing the generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because nothing in the claims improve the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology, nor impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis proceed to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 did not recite an additional element in the claim for performing the steps. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require a machine to perform the steps. Even if claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a hardware processor” and “a memory” as recited in claim 9 for performing the steps. The Specification describes “the term ‘hardware processor subsystem’ or ‘hardware processor’ can refer to a processor, memory, software or combinations thereof that cooperate to perform one or more specific tasks…the hardware processor subsystem can include one or more data processing elements (e.g., logic circuits, processing circuits, instruction execution devices, etc.)” (see Spec ¶ 70). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. At best, the hardware processor may perform the steps of receiving distribution data for a vaccine, receiving a master vaccine container plan and a vaccine stock and production plan. However, the function has been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions is not enough to qualify as a practical application, and the combination of the claimed elements do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claim does not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because nothing in the claims reflect an improvements to the functioning of a computer itself, or another technology or technical field; (2) apply the abstract idea with a particular machine; (3) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or (4) provide some meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(a)–(c), and (e)–(h).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 3-4, 7, 8 and 21 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101. The other claims system claims–9 and 11-12 and product claims 15 and 17-18 parallel claims 1, 3-4, 7, 8 and 21 —similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Bakry et al., (US 2010/0088142, hereinafter: El-Bakry), and in view of DeLuca et al., (US 2020/0132352, hereinafter: DeLuca).
Regarding claim 1, El-Bakry discloses a computer-implemented method for optimizing distribution of shipping items comprising:
receiving distribution data for a vaccine, the distribution data including a starting location and a destination (see ¶ 23-24, ¶ 93-94), and including a constraint for shipment with a refrigerated container that travels with or separately from both a vaccine and delivery vehicle (see ¶ 5, ¶ 22-23, ¶ 53, ¶ 164, ¶ 187);
creating a time space network model for tracking the vaccine relative to the constraint for shipment with the refrigerated container (see Fig. 9; ¶ 118-119, ¶ 184), where each node in the time space network represents a location in time and each arc in the time space network represents a viable flow of the vaccine or a refrigerated container (see Fig. 9, ¶ 23, ¶ 119, ¶ 145-154, ¶ 190-191);
generating a delivery plan by executing an objective function, including coordinating deliveries of vaccines with the refrigerated containers, using the time space network model to optimize the distribution data by minimizing objective function, wherein the objective function includes a minimized fulfillment penalty and a minimized unmet order penalty subject to a temperature constraint for the vaccine (see ¶ 4-5, ¶ 8, ¶ 22, ¶ 164-165, ¶ 177, ¶ 187).
El-Bakry discloses a method and system for optimizing transportation of distribution schedule of delivering bulk material including liquid gas/natural gas in a tank of a ship cargo between supply location and demand location; generating delivery plan as an operational plan for ship scheduling; and generating an optimized ship schedule based on the current schedule, the start date, end date (see ¶ 2-6. ¶ 25 and ¶ 212).
El-Bakry does not explicitly disclose the bulk material is vaccine and the vehicle is equipped with a refrigerated container; however, DeLuca in an analogous art for transporting products between locations discloses
vaccine (see ¶ 17, ¶ 27);
refrigerated container (see ¶ 3, ¶ 5, ¶ 17);
with locations for refrigerated containers being updated in real time (see ¶ 3-5, ¶ 14);
controlling a temperature of the vaccine using the refrigerated containers responsive to the delivery plan (see Abstract: enabling climate control is provided by monitoring a refrigerated section of a vehicle; ¶ 5, ¶ 7-8, ¶ 14, ¶ 17, ¶ 26-28); and
delivering the vaccines coordinated with the refrigerated containers to a delivery point in accordance with the delivery plan and the optimized distribution data (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 14-17, ¶ 24-27, ¶ 30 and claim 6), while using the refrigerated containers to ensure that a temperature of the vaccine stays within the temperature constraint (see ¶ 16-17, ¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shipping items including liquid gas/natural gas in a tank of El-Bakry with medical item including vaccines/organs in refrigeration units of DeLuca in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of transportation management, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, phrase(s) “creating a time space network model for tracking the vaccine relative to the constraint for shipment” and “while using the refrigerated containers to ensure that a temperature of the vaccine stays within the temperature constraint” are directed to intended use language and are not given patentable weight. If Applicant desires to given the functional phrase(s) a greater patentable weight, the Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant to positively recite the function in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, El-Bakry discloses a system for optimizing distribution of shipping items comprising:
receive distribution data for a vaccine, the distribution data including a starting location and a destination (see ¶ 23-24, ¶ 93-94), and including a constraint for shipment with a refrigerated container that travels with or separately from both a vaccine and delivery vehicle (see ¶ 5, ¶ 22-23, ¶ 53, ¶ 164, ¶ 187);
create a time space network model for tracking the vaccine relative to the constraint for shipment with the refrigerated container (see Fig. 9; ¶ 118-119, ¶ 184, ¶ 190), where each node in the time space network represents a location in time and each arc in the time space network represents a viable flow of the vaccine or a refrigerated container (see Fig. 9, ¶ 23, ¶ 119, ¶ 145-154, ¶ 190-191);
generate a delivery plan by executing an objective function item, including coordinating deliveries of vaccines with the refrigerated containers, using the time space network model to optimize the distribution data by minimizing the objective function, wherein the objective function includes a minimized fulfillment penalty and a minimized unmet order penalty subject to a temperature constraint for the vaccine (see ¶ 4-5, ¶ 8, ¶ 22, ¶ 164-165, ¶ 177, ¶ 187).
El-Bakry discloses a method and system for optimizing transportation of distribution schedule of delivering bulk material including liquid gas/natural gas in a tank of a ship cargo between supply location and demand location; generating delivery plan as an operational plan for ship scheduling; and generating an optimized ship schedule based on the current schedule, the start date, end date (see ¶ 2-6. ¶ 25 and ¶ 212).
El-Bakry does not explicitly disclose the bulk material is vaccine and the vehicle is equipped with a refrigerated container; however, DeLuca in an analogous art for transporting products between locations discloses
a delivery vehicle equipped with the refrigerated container (see ¶ 3-4, ¶ 17, ¶ 24)
a hardware processor (see Fig. 5, # 91; ¶ 3: processor controller device); and
a memory that stores a computer program product, which, when executed by the hardware processor (see Fig. 5, # 85; ¶ 17), causes the hardware processor to:
a cloud system in a cloud computing environment for said optimizing distribution of the shipping items (see ¶ 12, ¶ 45-49, ¶ 53, ¶ 63-65);
vaccine (see ¶ 17, ¶ 27);
refrigerated container (see ¶ 3, ¶ 5, ¶ 17);
with locations for refrigerated containers being updated in real time (see ¶ 3-5, ¶ 14);
control a temperature of the vaccine using the refrigerated containers responsive to the delivery plan (see Abstract: enabling climate control is provided by monitoring a refrigerated section of a vehicle; ¶ 5, ¶ 7-8, ¶ 14, ¶ 26-28); and
a delivery vehicle to transport the vaccines with the refrigerated containers to a delivery point in accordance with the delivery plan and the optimized distribution data (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 14-17, ¶ 24-27, ¶ 30 and claim 6), while using the refrigerated containers to ensure that a temperature of the vaccine stays within the temperature constraint (see ¶ 16-17, ¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shipping items including liquid gas/natural gas in a tank of El-Bakry with medical item including vaccines/organs in refrigeration units of DeLuca in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of transportation management, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, phrase(s) “creating a time space network model for tracking the vaccine relative to the constraint for shipment” and “while using the refrigerated containers to ensure that a temperature of the vaccine stays within the temperature constraint” are directed to intended use language and are not given patentable weight. If Applicant desires to given the functional phrase(s) a greater patentable weight, the Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant to positively recite the function in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, El-Bakry discloses a computer program product for optimizing distribution of shipping items comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to:
receive, using the processor, distribution data for a vaccine, the distribution data including a starting location and a destination (see ¶ 23-24, ¶ 93-94), and including a constraint for shipment with a refrigerated container that travels with or separately from both a vaccine and delivery vehicle (see ¶ 5, ¶ 22-23, ¶ 53, ¶ 164, ¶ 187);
create, using the processor, a time space network model at the cloud based system from said optimizing distribution of the shipping items for tracking the vaccine relative to the constraint for shipment with the refrigerated container (see Fig. 9; ¶ 118-119, ¶ 184, ¶ 190), where each node in the time space network represents a location in time and each arc in the time space network represents a viable flow of the vaccine or a refrigerated container (see Fig. 9, ¶ 23, ¶ 119, ¶ 145-154, ¶ 190-191);
generate a delivery plan by executing, using the processor, an objective function, including coordinating deliveries of vaccines with the refrigerated containers, using the time space network model to optimize the distribution data by minimizing the objective function, wherein the objective function includes a minimized fulfillment penalty and a minimized unmet order penalty subject to a temperature constraint for the vaccine (see ¶ 4-5, ¶ 8, ¶ 22, ¶ 164-165, ¶ 177, ¶ 187).
El-Bakry discloses a method and system for optimizing transportation of distribution schedule of delivering bulk material including liquid gas/natural gas in a tank of a ship cargo between supply location and demand location; generating delivery plan as an operational plan for ship scheduling; and generating an optimized ship schedule based on the current schedule, the start date, end date (see ¶ 2-6. ¶ 25 and ¶ 212).
El-Bakry does not explicitly disclose the bulk material is vaccine and the vehicle is equipped with a refrigerated container; however, DeLuca in an analogous art for transporting products between locations discloses
a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith (see ¶ 5, ¶ 34);
a cloud based system in a cloud computing environment for said optimizing distribution of the shipping items (see ¶ 12, ¶ 45-49, ¶ 53, ¶ 63-65);
vaccine (see ¶ 17, ¶ 27);
refrigerated container (see ¶ 3, ¶ 5, ¶ 17);
with locations for refrigerated containers being updated in real time (see ¶ 3-5, ¶ 14);
control a temperature of the vehicle using the refrigerated containers responsive to the delivery plan (see Abstract: enabling climate control is provided by monitoring a refrigerated section of a vehicle; ¶ 5, ¶ 7-8, ¶ 14, ¶ 26-28); and
order delivery the vaccines coordinated with the refrigerated containers to a delivery point, using a delivery vehicle, in accordance with the delivery plan and the optimized distribution data (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 14-17, ¶ 24-27, ¶ 30 and claim 6), while using the refrigerated containers to ensure that a temperature of the vaccine stays within the temperature constraint (see ¶ 16-17, ¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shipping items including liquid gas/natural gas in a tank of El-Bakry with medical item including vaccines/organs in refrigeration units of DeLuca in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of transportation management, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, phrase(s) “creating a time space network model for tracking the vaccine relative to the constraint for shipment” and “while using the refrigerated containers to ensure that a temperature of the vaccine stays within the temperature constraint” are directed to intended use language and are not given patentable weight. If Applicant desires to given the functional phrase(s) a greater patentable weight, the Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant to positively recite the function in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, 11 and 17, El-Bakry and DeLuca discloses the limitations of the method/system/product above, El-Bakry further discloses the method/system/product, wherein the time space network includes multiple suppliers and multiple customers, wherein nodes of the time space network are locations of time and arcs between the nodes represent movement of the vaccine and the refrigerated container between the multiple suppliers and multiple customers (see ¶ 145-154, ¶ 181, ¶ 190).
In addition, the claims merely characterizing the time space network are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18, El-Bakry and DeLuca discloses the limitations of the method/system/product above, El-Bakry further discloses the method/system/product, wherein the arc between nodes includes retaining the refrigerated container at a supplier location across multiple nodes of time (see ¶ 145-154, ¶ 191).
Regarding claim 7, El-Bakry and DeLuca discloses the limitations of the method/system/product above, DeLuca further discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the creating of the time space network model comprises receiving a master vaccine container plan and a vaccine stock and production plan (see ¶ 14, ¶ 17, ¶ 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of El-Bakry to include the teaching of DeLuca in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of transportation management, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, El-Bakry and DeLuca discloses the limitations of the method/system/product above, El-Bakry further discloses the computer implemented method of claim 7, wherein the master vaccine container plan and the vaccine stock and production plan are updated in real time (see ¶ 12-13).
Regarding claim 21, El-Bakry and DeLuca discloses the limitations of the method/system/product above, El-Bakry further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the objective function further includes a logistic cost for shipping vaccine, a logistic cost for refrigerated containers, a capacity constraint, a balance constraint at a supplier for the refrigerated containers, a balance constraint at a customer for the refrigerated containers, a balance constraint at the supplier for the vaccine, and a balance constraint at the customer for the vaccine (see ¶ 8).
In addition, claim 21 merely describing the specific constraints of objective function is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chiyo et al., (US 11315169) discloses a system comprising a remote monitoring apparatus, a consumable item ordering apparatus, a consumable item delivery apparatus, and an information distribution apparatus with cloud computing.
Choi et al., (KR 102317089) discloses a method for vaccine distribution management comprising a vaccine packaging product for transportation equipped with vaccine storage container and refrigerant to maintain the vaccine at a proper temperature.
Shoenfeld (US 2008/0052044 A1) discloses a method for monitoring shipping crate for pharmaceutical shipments and the temperature and/or humidity within the crate in transit to identify whether the contents are safe or compromised.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN G CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached on 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624