DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to Amendment/Request for reconsideration after Non-Final on 06/20/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 are pending. The effective filing date is 01/25/2022.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2022 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1-Claims 1-4, and 6-10 are a method, which is patent eligible material. Claims 11-14, and 16-19 are an apparatus, which is patent eligible material. Claims 20 is a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium, which is patent eligible material. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1-The independent claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 20, recites:
making, at a device, a determination that an asset identification system has been deployed at an organization (making a determination about whether a system has been deployed is a claim to analyzing information, which is a method that may be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); additionally, deploying specific systems within a supply chain is the management of items within a business, and would be considered a decision in regards to how a business relates within its organization, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108.);
automatically deploying, by the device and based on the determination, a connector for the asset identification system to capture labeling information indicative of transport of one or more physical assets via the organization, wherein the connector is generated based on visibility offering and visibility intents of the organization and facilities sharing of information from the asset identification system (deploying a connector to a system, is the act of using the connector for asset identification, and therefore is an instruction to follow for the purpose of labeling information in regards to an inventory. Instructions to complete a business actions can be both using a computer to connect business information under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108; and a method of following instructions at determined under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011);
receiving, by the device and from the connector, a binding request tag notification indicative of transport of a particular physical asset of the one or more physical assets via the organization (receiving a request about a notification is the exchange of information, which is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
associating, by the device, the binding request tag notification with one or more identifiers for the particular physical asset used by one or more other organizations by applying a binding algorithm to bond metadata received from the asset identification system with metadata received from the one or more other organizations (the act of associating a tag using an algorithm is a business process to use a mathematical equation to make decision about a business, and that decision is how a tag relates to inventory, which is a business relation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108); and
updating, by the device and based on associating, one or more inventory management systems to associate the particular physical asset with the one or more identifiers used by the one or more other organizations, to reflect identity of the particular physical asset across domains using different identifiers (updating a log of inventory is a form of collecting data, which is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 1 in its broadest sense belongs to the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because the method and devices are used to determine the identification of a physical asset, and tagging the specific physical asset. Identification and tagging of physical asserts are part of everyday business relations is tracking and managing the physical assets within the inventory, and therefore the claims recite subject matter that is considered a judicial exception. The additional elements will be evaluated to determine if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application or provides significantly more.
Whether alone, or combination, claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 20, recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2-The additional elements of independent claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 20, include a device, an asset identification system, a connector, interfaces, a processor, a memory and a tangible, non-transitory, computer readable storage medium.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements fail to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim must be more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. A meaningful limitation has been found as an improvement to the functioning of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or using the judicial exception as a tool to perform the instructions (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The device performs the method, and the asset identification system performs identification. This is not a particular way a computer would function, but rather discusses the steps of identifying and linking physical assets tags, and this may be done just as simply with a clipboard and piece of paper. The use of technology is insufficient to show an improvement to the computer-functionality, since this is more an application of the method on a computer, by implementing processor to use stored instruction steps. Therefore, the lack of technical details about the determination steps fails to provide details of improving computer functionality to integrate into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Additionally, the when the combination of the elements may present a meaningful limitation beyond general linking, but the additional elements provide device, and application system that are described with outcome specific features, and fails to provide a sufficient limit that would limit the use of the abstract idea into a practical application. The linking of the abstract idea to a computer processor is nothing more than the use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to provide a combination of meaningful limitations that go beyond general linking and remain ineligible. MPEP 2106.05(f) TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
The connector, interfaces, a processor, a memory and a tangible, non-transitory, computer readable storage medium are all computer elements that perform their typical functions. When the claimed business method and mental process of exchanging information is performed on computer elements, the abstract ideas must showcase how the computer elements would function differently than how it normally would, in order to qualify as a method of improving the functioning of a computer, however, the additional elements that are an interface, display information, the processors implements the instructions, and the memories store the information, and perform their regular functions. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Additionally, when the additional elements are used as tool to perform functions, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Step 2B- Claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 20, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements do not integrate identification into a practical application, or showcase how the combination would be significantly more, and therefore remain rejected under the MPEP 2106.05(a) and (f) as described in step 2A, Prong 2.
Therefore, claim 1, 11 and 20 remain rejected under 101.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 and 12 identify forms of an asset identification system including radio, Bluetooth, barcode and QR codes. A specific asset identification system is a tool to connect tow entities, and the connection is a business relation between inventory and users, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Using a specific technologic field, such as wireless communication devices to send and receive information is another means in which to apply the abstract idea on a computer element. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The asset identification system captures information, but this does not showcase an improvement to the functioning of specific wireless communication networks. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore claims 2 and 12 remain rejected under 101.
Dependent claims 3-4, 10 and 13-14 add details about the asset identification with information provided within the tag. Information being passed is not more than the exchange of information, which is a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), using computers. Additional details about the information being stored on tags does not improve the functioning of storage elements, since the details of what is being stored does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application without showing how the information would aid in improving data retrieval or any other improvement to its function. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claim 6 and 16 adds the binding algorithm option including string, semantic or fuzzy matching. Using an algorithm to match for business optimization is still using an algorithm to complete an action, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. The algorithm is the method used to bind information, but the use of an algorithm implemented on a computer does not integrate the claims into a practical application simply by using an algorithm. The algorithm is not used to showcase an improvement to the functioning of a computer by providing technical details or a particular software design. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore claims 6 and 16 fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Dependent claims 7-9 and 17-19 add additional information about the connector. A connector is used to connect two entities for the purpose of completing business relations, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Additional details about connector does not improve the functioning of processors or device elements, since the details of what is being connected does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application without showing how the information would aid in improving data retrieval or any other improvement to its function. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Therefore, the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0315765 A1 Schantz et al. (hereinafter Schantz) in view of US 2020/0227178 A1 Lombardi et al. (hereinafter Lombardi).
Regarding claim 1, Schantz teaches a method, comprising:
making, at a device, a determination that an asset identification system has been deployed at an organization (Schantz [0055] the localizing ID reader (LIDR) is a device that determines the asset is tagged with an identification system; by identifying the tag on the item, the device is able to determine the system deployed at an organization);
automatically deploying, by the device and based on the determination, a connector for the asset identification system to capture labeling information indicative of transport of one or more physical assets via the organization (Schantz [0055] the LIDR is connected through a plurality of devices, including a locator for the transportation device within the warehouse, the RTLS tag associated with the transportation device to connect the asset with the transporter, and all of which are connected to a computer over a server to link the information; [0032-0035] the ID tag can be a plurality of options; all include high density information storage capabilities);
receiving, by the device and from the connector, a binding request tag notification indicative of transport of a particular physical asset of the one or more physical assets via the organization (Schantz [0098] all of the information received may be combined and connected on the computer, this would be able to link the location of the transport vehicle, with the tagged asset, and place the item location within the warehouse as a whole; [0076] reading of the tag may detect motion and alert the computer via the location receiver about the tagged item movement);
associating, by the device, the binding request tag notification with one or more identifiers for the particular physical asset used by one or more other organizations (Schantz [0098] all of the information received may be combined and connected on the computer, this would be able to link the location of the transport vehicle, with the tagged asset, and place the item location within the warehouse as a whole); and
updating, by the device and based on associating, one or more inventory management systems to associate the particular physical asset with the one or more identifiers used by the one or more other organizations, to reflect identity of the particular physical asset across domains using different identifiers (Schantz [0006] continuously update inventory; [0075-0077] real time location system is tag inventory item to determine its current location; [0032-0035] the asset identification technology can be plural options, and multiple technologies may be employed and the identification device may employ multiple technologies to read any type of asset identification system).
Schantz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector is generated based on visibility offering and visibility intents of the organization and facilities sharing of information from the asset identification system and associating by applying a binding algorithm to bond metadata received from the asset identification system with metadata received from the one or more other organizations.
Lombardi is in the field of connecting systems (Lombardi Abstract, connecting systems and processes) and teaches wherein the connector is generated based on visibility offering and visibility intents of the organization and facilities sharing of information from the asset identification system (Lombardi [0127] the sharelet host has specific sharing policies associated with each client; [0246] sending and receiving requests from different users of the system for access to a database that includes identification information) and associating by applying a binding algorithm to bond metadata received from the asset identification system with metadata received from the one or more other organizations (Lombardi [0168] the object may be given a specific code string, and the code may be associated based on a match; [0164] the code create association lists; the system uses a string to attach to a specific asset, then searches new assets for the same string, and then associates the two assets with matching strings, the algorithm being an association based on string match; [0179] using a variety of sources for asset information (ie. Metadata)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the database connection between users of Schantz with the authorizations of organizations participating in the connection as taught by Lombardi; and to modify the asset tracking of Schantz with the binding algorithm of Lombardi. The motivation for doing so would be to create a secure network with specific allowances given to organizations with clearance or approved access (Lombardi [0081] secure system allows for more efficient and reliable systems) and provide a means to connect different tags, and improving tagged data would improve filtering functions of the database (Lombardi [0164] tagging items may filter based on tags, improved tagging would improve filtering).
Regarding claim 2, modified Schantz teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein the asset identification system is based on radio-frequency identification, Bluetooth, barcodes, or quick response codes (Schantz [0054] asset identification may be accomplished through barcode or RFID).
Regarding claim 3, modified Schantz teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein the one or more other organizations comprise one or more asset identification systems different than the asset identification system (Schantz [0032-0035] the asset identification technology can be plural options, and multiple technologies may be employed and the identification device may employ multiple technologies to read any type of asset identification system).
Regarding claim 4, modified Schantz teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein the binding request tag notification comprises an indication of physical asset type (Schantz [0112] the ID tag reader is able to convey a destination, status or other pertinent information about the asset; [0035] the tag reader is capable of multiple technologies, to identify the specific type of identifier), physical asset dimension and/or weight, an origin of the one or more physical assets, or an identifier type used by the asset identification system.
Regarding claim 6, modified Schantz teaches the method as in claim 1. Schantz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the binding algorithm comprises one or more of string matching, semantic matching, or fuzzy name matching. Lombardi teaches wherein the binding algorithm comprises one or more of string matching (Lombardi [0168] the object may be given a specific code string, and the code may be associated based on a match; [0164] the code create association lists; the system uses a string to attach to a specific asset, then searches new assets for the same string, and then associates the two assets with matching strings, the algorithm being an association based on string match). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the asset tracking of Schantz with the binding algorithm of Lombardi. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a means to connect different tags, and improving tagged data would improve filtering functions of the database (Lombardi [0164] tagging items may filter based on tags, improved tagging would improve filtering).
Regarding claim 7, Schantz teaches the method as in claim 1. Schantz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector normalizes information regarding the one or more physical assets. Lombardi teaches wherein the connector normalizes information regarding the one or more physical assets. (Lombardi [0288] data adapters include technology to convert field data into different variables). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the asset identification of Schantz with the normalizing of information between system as taught by Lombardi. The motivation for doing so would be to allow communication between all devices, new and legacy included (Lombardi [0288] connecting legacy and new data to manage any information received).
Regarding claim 8, Schantz teaches the method as in claim 1. Schantz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector sends the binding request tag notification to a particular connector of a different asset identification system. Lombardi teaches wherein the connector sends the binding request tag notification to a particular connector of a different asset identification system (Lombardi [0302] data adapters may allow to connect to any external device, and convert the data to speak to a specific device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the asset identification of Schantz with the connection to specific devices as taught by Lombardi. The motivation for doing so would be to allow communication between all devices, new and legacy included (Lombardi [0288] connecting legacy and new data to manage any information received).
Regarding claim 9, modified Schantz teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein the connector is deployed at a seaport terminal, an airport, a transport vehicle, a warehouse, or a distribution center (Schantz [0054] the system may be deployed in a warehouse; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, modified Schantz teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein the asset identification system is different than one previously deployed at the organization (Schantz [0109] the tag reader may include an operator to switch between ID reading and location reading).
Regarding claim 11, Schantz teaches an apparatus, comprising:
one or more interfaces (Schantz [0104] data interface to convey and receive information);
a processor coupled to the one or more interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes (Schantz [0100] a computer with data interface for use with microprocessor); and
a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor (Schantz [0125] the computers, microprocessors and interfaces are connected and implemented by appropriate software to execute processes; functional building blocks include processors on a computer to execute the process, which would need to be stored to be implemented), the process when executed configured to:
make a determination that an asset identification system has been deployed at an organization (Schantz [0055] the localizing ID reader (LIDR) is a device that determines the asset is tagged with an identification system; by identifying the tag on the item, the device is able to determine the system deployed at an organization);
automatically deploy, based on the determination, a connector for the asset identification system to capture labeling information indicative of transport of one or more physical assets via the organization (Schantz [0055] the LIDR is connected through a plurality of devices, including a locator for the transportation device within the warehouse, the RTLS tag associated with the transportation device to connect the asset with the transporter, and all of which are connected to a computer over a server to link the information; [0032-0035] the ID tag can be a plurality of options; all include high density information storage capabilities);
receive, from the connector, a binding request tag notification indicative of transport of a particular physical asset of the one or more physical assets via the organization (Schantz [0098] all of the information received may be combined and connected on the computer, this would be able to link the location of the transport vehicle, with the tagged asset, and place the item location within the warehouse as a whole; [0076] reading of the tag may detect motion and alert the computer via the location receiver about the tagged item movement); and
associate the binding request tag notification with one or more identifiers for the particular physical asset used by one or more other organizations (Schantz [0098] all of the information received may be combined and connected on the computer, this would be able to link the location of the transport vehicle, with the tagged asset, and place the item location within the warehouse as a whole).
Schantz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector is generated based on visibility offering and visibility intents of the organization and facilities sharing of information from the asset identification system and associate by applying a binding algorithm based on separate metadata from the asset identification system and the one or more other organizations by applying a binding algorithm based on separate metadata from the asset identification system and the one or more other organizations.
Lombardi teaches wherein the connector is generated based on visibility offering and visibility intents of the organization and facilities sharing of information from the asset identification system (Lombardi [0127] the sharelet host has specific sharing policies associated with each client; [0246] sending and receiving requests from different users of the system for access to a database that includes identification information) and associating by applying a binding algorithm based on separate metadata from the asset identification system and the one or more other organizations by applying a binding algorithm based on separate metadata from the asset identification system and the one or more other organizations (Lombardi [0168] the object may be given a specific code string, and the code may be associated based on a match; [0164] the code create association lists; the system uses a string to attach to a specific asset, then searches new assets for the same string, and then associates the two assets with matching strings, the algorithm being an association based on string match; [0179] using a variety of sources for asset information (ie metadata)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the database connection between users of Schantz with the authorizations of organizations participating in the connection as taught by Lombardi; and to modify the asset tracking of Schantz with the binding algorithm of Lombardi.
The motivation for doing so would be to create a secure network with specific allowances given to organizations with clearance or approved access (Lombardi [0081] secure system allows for more efficient and reliable systems) and provide a means to connect different tags, and improving tagged data would improve filtering functions of the database (Lombardi [0164] tagging items may filter based on tags, improved tagging would improve filtering).
Regarding claim 12, modified Scahntz teaches the apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the asset identification system is based on radio-frequency identification, Bluetooth, barcodes, or quick response codes (Schantz [0054] asset identification may be accomplished through barcode or RFID).
Regarding claim 13, Schantz teaches the apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the one or more other organizations comprise one or more asset identification systems different than the asset identification system (Schantz [0032-0035] the asset identification technology can be plural options, and multiple technologies may be employed and the identification device may employ multiple technologies to read any type of asset identification system).
Regarding claim 14, modified Schantz teaches the apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the binding request tag notification comprises an indication of physical asset type (Schantz [0112] the ID tag reader is able to convey a destination, status or other pertinent information about the asset; [0035] the tag reader is capable of multiple technologies, to identify the specific type of identifier), physical asset dimension and/or weight, an origin of the one or more physical assets, or an identifier type used by the asset identification system.
Regarding claim 16, modified Schantz teaches the apparatus as in claim 11. Schantz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the binding algorithm comprises one or more of string matching, semantic matching, or fuzzy name matching. Lombardi teaches wherein the binding algorithm comprises one or more of string matching (Lombardi [0168] the object may be given a specific code string, and the code may be associated based on a match; [0164] the code create association lists; the system uses a string to attach to a specific asset, then searches new assets for the same string, and then associates the two assets with matching strings, the algorithm being an association based on string match). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the asset tracking of Schantz with the binding algorithm of Lombardi. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a means to connect different tags, and improving tagged data would improve filtering functions of the database (Lombardi [0164] tagging items may filter based on tags, improved tagging would improve filtering).
Regarding claim 17, Schantz teaches the apparatus as in claim 11, Schantz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector normalizes information regarding the one or more physical assets. Lombardi teaches wherein the connector normalizes information regarding the one or more physical assets. (Lombardi [0288] data adapters include technology to convert field data into different variables). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the asset identification of Schantz with the normalizing of information between system as taught by Lombardi. The motivation for doing so would be to allow communication between all devices, new and legacy included (Lombardi [0288] connecting legacy and new data to manage any information received).
Regarding claim 18, Schantz teaches the apparatus as in claim 11. Schantz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector sends the binding request tag notification to a particular connector of a different asset identification system. Lombardi teaches wherein the connector sends the binding request tag notification to a particular connector of a different asset identification system (Lombardi [0302] data adapters may allow to connect to any external device, and convert the data to speak to a specific device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the asset identification of Schantz with the connection to specific devices as taught by Lombardi. The motivation for doing so would be to allow communication between all devices, new and legacy included (Lombardi [0288] connecting legacy and new data to manage any information received).
Regarding claim 19, modified Schantz teaches the apparatus as in claim 11, wherein the connector is deployed at a seaport terminal, an airport, a transport vehicle, a warehouse, or a distribution center (Schantz [0054] the system may be deployed in a warehouse; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Schantz teaches a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that cause a device to execute a process (Schantz [0125] the computers, microprocessors and interfaces are connected and implemented by appropriate software to execute processes; functional building blocks include processors on a computer to execute the process, which would need to be stored to be implemented) comprising:
making, by the device, a determination that an asset identification system has been deployed at an organization (Schantz [0055] the localizing ID reader (LIDR) is a device that determines the asset is tagged with an identification system; by identifying the tag on the item, the device is able to determine the system deployed at an organization);
automatically deploying, based on the determination, a connector for the asset identification system to capture labeling information indicative of transport of one or more physical assets via the organization (Schantz [0055] the LIDR is connected through a plurality of devices, including a locator for the transportation device within the warehouse, the RTLS tag associated with the transportation device to connect the asset with the transporter, and all of which are connected to a computer over a server to link the information; [0032-0035] the ID tag can be a plurality of options; all include high density information storage capabilities);
receiving, from the connector, a binding request tag notification indicative of transport of a particular physical asset of the one or more physical assets via the organization (Schantz [0098] all of the information received may be combined and connected on the computer, this would be able to link the location of the transport vehicle, with the tagged asset, and place the item location within the warehouse as a whole; [0076] reading of the tag may detect motion and alert the computer via the location receiver about the tagged item movement); and
associating the binding request tag notification with one or more identifiers for the particular physical asset used by one or more other organizations (Schantz [0098] all of the information received may be combined and connected on the computer, this would be able to link the location of the transport vehicle, with the tagged asset, and place the item location within the warehouse as a whole).
Schantz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connector is generated based on visibility offering and visibility intents of the organization and facilities sharing of information from the asset identification system and associating by applying a binding algorithm based on separate metadata from the asset identification system and the one or more other organizations by applying a binding algorithm based on separate metadata from the asset identification system and the one or more other organizations.
Lombardi teaches wherein the connector is generated based on visibility offering and visibility intents of the organization and facilities sharing of information from the asset identification system (Lombardi [0127] the sharelet host has specific sharing policies associated with each client; [0246] sending and receiving requests from different users of the system for access to a database that includes identification information) and associating by applying a binding algorithm based on separate metadata from the asset identification system and the one or more other organizations by applying a binding algorithm based on separate metadata from the asset identification system and the one or more other organizations (Lombardi [0168] the object may be given a specific code string, and the code may be associated based on a match; [0164] the code create association lists; the system uses a string to attach to a specific asset, then searches new assets for the same string, and then associates the two assets with matching strings, the algorithm being an association based on string match; [0179] using a variety of sources for asset information (ie metadata)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the database connection between users of Schantz with the authorizations of organizations participating in the connection as taught by Lombardi; and to modify the asset tracking of Schantz with the binding algorithm of Lombardi.
The motivation for doing so would be to create a secure network with specific allowances given to organizations with clearance or approved access (Lombardi [0081] secure system allows for more efficient and reliable systems) and provide a means to connect different tags, and improving tagged data would improve filtering functions of the database (Lombardi [0164] tagging items may filter based on tags, improved tagging would improve filtering).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Request for reconsideration filed 06/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101:
Prong One (Step 2A), the claims are grouped within the category of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process and mathematical equation. Each limitation is addressed under Section 101, to showcase what specific abstract idea each limitation falls under. The instant application overall is a process that would be required to conduct business, and specifically helps with the relationship between different user of the domain with different identifiers to participate within the system, landing the claims squarely in the category of a commercial interaction in the form of business relations. The applicants recited main advantages to the techniques does not alter whether the limitation is a business relation, but rather further analysis is required if the claimed abstract idea limitations are incorporated into a practical application or is significantly more.
Prong Two (Step 2A), the claims must recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is done by using the one or more of the consideration laid out within the MPEP as guiding examples. The additional elements include a device, an asset identification system, a connector, interfaces, a processor, a memory and a tangible, non-transitory, computer readable storage medium. The use of conventional element may still integrate the exception into a practical application, but this must be done in a way that the entire combination showcases more than the abstract idea. The claims do not showcase the improvement of a functioning of a computer because the claims recite what is being done on the computer, and what is being done is the abstract idea. The device makes a determination, deploys a connection, receives a binding request, and associates identifiers, all of which is the abstract business idea of changing identification tags for business purposes. It does not showcase how the device, other than stating a solution like deploying a connector, without giving any technical details on how the device in accomplishing this solution. Therefore, the idea is described throughout the claims, but does not provide physical attachment to the device beyond mere mention of the device in a singular word that is merely used as drafting effort to connect the abstract idea to a physical attribute. The elements described are used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 101.
Regarding 103, independent claim 1 has been amended to include a binding algorithm to bond metadata from identification with received information. Schantz is presented to teach that a binding request tag notification be associated with a specific identifier for a particular physical asset, and this is shown in Schantz [0098] that the asset may be tagged with information associated with the specific asset. Lombardi is used to teach that the binding may be accomplished using an algorithm. As seen in Lombardi [0164-0168] teaches that the object is given a specific code string, and that string is used to match. The matching of strings based on specific rules is a string match, which is what the instant specification describes as a possible binding algorithm as pointed out by Applicant on pg. 10 of Applicant Arguments. The separate metadata from asset identification is also described in the instant specification pg. 32, where the information is still associated with the asset, but can come from a variety of domains, and therefore when Lombardi teaches that information may come from a variety of sources in [0179] the combination of the two reference is able to teach using a binding algorithm to bind information to assets.
Examiner would like to put the focus on the claim language. Applicant arguments point to the bonding of information from disparate domains, and that the problem arises when different system try to combine information, however, Examiner would like Applicant to specifically point to the claim language that would require the metadata data be