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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 12/19/2022.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 12/19/2022 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method for automatically identifying and creating a product catalog, comprising:
identifying a unit load device (ULD) state and a specific ULD position for a ULD within a prescribed airport perimeter;
receiving a demand for an allocation of one or more ULDs within a perimeter area;
selecting a next action for the ULD based upon the demand for the allocation of one or more ULDs and based on the ULD state and the ULD position; and
dynamically identifying an optimized route for ULD pickup and delivery of the ULD within the prescribed airport perimeter based the selected next action.
These limitations recite managing and optimizing logistics assets using allocation, routing and scheduling decisions, which fall under organizing human activity, mental processes, as longstanding commercial and transportation practices. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Courts have consistently held that collecting, analyzing and distributing information including communications are directed to abstract idea, (See EPP, Intellectual Ventures v Capital One, SAP v InvestPic, In re Schrader).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The recited steps control the flow of information. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements such as unit load device, claim 11 recites processor, memory, ULD, and claim 16 recites computer program product, ULD, storage medium.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 11 and 16 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks). The “optimized route” is claimed as a result without any algorithm, or control improvement disclosed.
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps of receiving demands, selecting action, managing resources are generic computer functions.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. These limitations represent routine data manipulation and result-based functional language and do not add any unconventional technical features sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Claim 9 merely applied the abstract routing decision to an autonomous vehicle which is an intended use and post-solution activity. As such, claims 2-10 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. This is because claims 2-10 rely on at least similar additional elements as recited in claim 1. That is, the limitations are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Lastly, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-10 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. Claim 10 recites IAUCT which is defined entirely by what it does not how it does it and is equivalent to a generic logistics management system.
In view of the above, claims 1-10 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 11-15 (system), 16-20 (product-CRM) recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-10 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the mere recitation of generic computing components such as computing device, memory do not remedy the deficiencies because similar logic applied under Step 2A (prong 2) and Step 2B is applicable. As such, claims 11-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Korad et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0228691), in view of Burch et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0033872).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16, Korad teaches
identifying a unit load device (ULD) state and a specific ULD position for a ULD within a prescribed airport perimeter; (ULD data comprising geographical location data, temperature data, capacity data, and an allocation status of a ULD. The geographical location data is associated with the real-time location of the ULD, whereas the temperature data is associated with the temperature maintained in the ULD. Further, capacity data is indicative of the weight of goods that can be accommodated in the ULD, whereas the allocation status of the ULD is indicative of the flight or aircraft information to which the ULD is assigned, [33]),
receiving a demand for an allocation of one or more ULDs within a perimeter area; (The forecasting data may be captured at the check-in terminal or may be determined based on the number of booking received for a flight associated with the terminal. Further, based on the forecasting data, the appropriate number of ULDs required to accommodate the set of goods at a terminal is determined and accordingly the appropriate number of ULDs is assigned to each terminal, [35]),
selecting a next action for the ULD based upon the demand for the allocation of one or more ULDs and based on the ULD state and the ULD position; (Once the sub-set of ULDs is identified, in the next step, the ULD assignment and scheduling module 218 is configured to assign a ULD from the sub-set of ULDs to a set of goods of the plurality of sets of goods. For the purpose of assigning the ULD, the ULD assignment and scheduling module 218 is configured to analyze the goods data and ULD data. In one example, the ULD assignment and scheduling module 218 may analyse the geographical distance between the geographical location data of ULDs and the source data of the set of goods. Based on the minimal distance between the geographical location data of the ULDs and the source data of the set of goods, each set of goods is assigned with ULD, [34])
Korad substantially discloses the claimed invention, however does not explicitly teach dynamically identifying an optimized route for ULD pickup and delivery of the ULD within the prescribed airport perimeter based the selected next action.
However, Burch teaches semi-autonomous movement of the cargo tractor or tug (a type of logistics ground support equipment) according to an optimized path in airport logistics environment, captures usage data, and allows for enhanced maintenance monitoring for such tugs, [37]…the cargo tractor 115 may move along a path 125 near the aircraft 100 and its cargo loading structure 115 so as to facilitate pickup and/or delivery of items from its associated dollies 120 to and from the aircraft 100, [41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify Korad’s demand driven ULD allocation and stat tracking with Burch’s optimized path generation in an airport environment, in order to improve their automated, autonomous, operations to, for example, avoid collisions or create governed rules about the environment and objects within that environment, [106].
Regarding claims 2, 12, 17, Korad teaches storing the ULD state and the ULD position for the ULD in a ULD repository data store, and storing updated ULD state and the ULD position with processing ULD events, (The ULD data may be captured in real-time and updated at a regular frequency, [18]).
Regarding claim 3, 13, 18, Korad teaches identifying the ULD state comprises identifying one of an empty state, and a full state, (The empty ULDs are again loaded with new goods and transported from one place to another. In order to optimize the movement of the ULDs for loading and unloading of goods, the present system is configured to track individual location of empty ULDs using a set of smart devices that are installed over the ULDs, [15]).
Regarding claim 5, Korad teaches selecting a next action for the ULD further comprises identifying the next action for allocating the ULD to the demand, (assigning a ULD from the sub-set of ULDs to a set of goods, [8]).
Regarding claim 7, Korad teaches selecting a next action for the ULD further comprises coordinating the next action of multiple ULDs, optimizing availability of the multiple ULDs and executing the next action on the ULD, (accommodate the set of goods at a terminal is determined and accordingly the appropriate number of ULDs is assigned to each terminal, [20]).
Regarding claim 9, 15, 20, Korad does not explicitly teach, however Burch teaches dynamically identifying an optimized route for ULD pickup and delivery within the prescribed airport perimeter further comprises enabling an autonomous vehicle to pick up and deliver the ULDs within the perimeter area based upon the identified route within the prescribed airport perimeter, (known coordinates could be utilized without human control, [64], follow a planned optimized path, [102-104]).
Regarding claim 10, Korad teaches providing an Intelligent Autonomous ULD Control Tower (IAUCT) to receive demands for ULDs, to maintain a ULD repository data store, (Fig. 2-3) and Burch teaches manage multiple ULDs within the prescribed airport perimeter, (central server, [146-147]).
Claims 4, 6, 8, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Korad and Burch combination and further in view of Morimoto et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,035,856)
Regarding claim 4, the combination does not explicitly teach identifying the ULD state further comprises identifying a UDL health condition for ULD maintenance, Korad teaches and a ULD allocation status to a current demand, identifying a sub-set of Unit loading devices (ULDs), from a set of ULDs, with allocation status as null, [8]).
However, Morimoto teaches once the container has been inspected for damage, any damage or problems may be noted and appended, Col.12 ln 15-55.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 14, 19, the combination does not explicitly teach, however Morimoto teaches selecting a next action for the ULD further comprises moving the ULD to an identified one of a loading location, an unloading location, a ULD maintenance location and a parking location within the prescribed airport perimeter, selecting a next action for the ULD further comprises moving the ULD to a ULD maintenance location for repair, (Col.13 ln 5-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to modify combination’s (Korad’s) demand driven ULD allocation and state tracking with Morimoto’s exception routing, in order to prevent damage to the items being shipped, Col.8 ln 11-21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627