DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the patent application filed 11 May 2023. It is noted that this application benefits from Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/364,612 filed 12 May 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
[3] Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to a method and a system and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1 and 10 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of assessing operational risks associated with a facility using determined performance indicators and generating an action plan for the facility, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (e.g., implementing an action plan).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 10. In particular, claim 10 includes:
“…receiving…a key performance indicator associated with a facility…generating, based on the key performance indicator and the site risk index, the action plan comprising a remedial action to correct the facility issue; implement the remedial action.…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 10 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of assessing operational risks associated with a facility using determined performance indicators and generating an action plan for the facility, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (e.g., implementing an action plan) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 10 recites:
“…determining, based on the site risk index, a need to implement an action plan to correct a facility issue; generating, based on the key performance indicator and the site risk index, the action plan comprising a remedial action to correct the facility issue…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited processor, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to observe operating conditions at a facility, determine a risk, and generate a plan to mitigate the evaluated risk are practicable/performable by a human using pen and paper and/or employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1 and 10 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional technical elements of claim 10 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “database” and “equipment”. Claim 1, directed to a system introduces a “one or more processors” and processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. Claims 12-14 introduce a “user interface”. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “one or more processors” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “database” is identified as storing key performance indicators.
(3) The “equipment” is identified as performing remedial actions directed by the action plan.
(4) The “user interface” is identified as displaying the site risk index and performance indictors and user adjustments to the action plan.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., data/indicators are received, performance and risk is evaluated, actions are determined and implemented etc.) as associated with a respective “processor” or “database”. A recitation of “by a processor” or “in a database”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., data and indicators); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., plans and performance indicators); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., displaying performance and plan information on a user interface); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., evaluations of performance and risks) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 10 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of assessing operational risks associated with a facility using determined performance indicators and generating an action plan for the facility using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed assessing operational risks associated with a facility using determined performance indicators and generating an action plan for the facility benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0175]-[0177]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “one or more processors” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “database” is identified as storing key performance indicators.
(3) The “equipment” is identified as performing remedial actions directed by the action plan.
(4) The “user interface” is identified as displaying the site risk index and performance indictors and user adjustments to the action plan.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., data and indicators); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., plans and performance indicators); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., displaying performance and plan information on a user interface); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., evaluations of performance and risks).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of assessing operational risks associated with a facility using determined performance indicators and generating an action plan for the facility. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., assessing operational risks associated with a facility using determined performance indicators and generating an action plan for the facility, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of assessing operational risks associated with a facility using determined performance indicators and generating an action plan for the facility benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: 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; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network 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); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claim 1 is directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
[4] Claim(s) 1-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidyanathan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0169447 hereinafter ‘Vaidyanathan’) in view of Nicotera et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0267400 hereinafter ‘Nicotera’).
With respect to claim 1, Vaidyanathan discloses a system comprising: a database comprising a threshold indicator associated with a facility; a memory storing computer-executable instructions; one or more processors in communication with the memory (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0041]-[0043 [0046]; See at least system configuration), wherein the computer-executable instructions when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to: receive, from the database, a performance threshold (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0046]-[0048]; See at least database, package thresholds, and level of risk associated with facilities in a logistics network); process the performance threshold indicator to assign a site risk index of the facility by comparing the performance threshold indicator to an expected value (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0050]-[0053]; See at least measures and calculated potential for violating the performance threshold associated with individual facilities. See further level of risk determined, i.e., a risk index); determine, based on the site risk index, a requirement to implement an action plan associated with a facility issue (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0039] [0052]; See at least generation of new plan to route package based on facility-associated risk level); generate, based on the performance threshold indicator and the site risk index, the action plan comprising a remedial action, wherein the action plan corrects the facility issue (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0051]-[0052]; See at least corrective re-routing based on risk of delay associated with facilities); and transmit the remedial action to an equipment of the facility (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0052] [0053] [0081]-[0083]; See at least rerouting of package and new plan responsive to calculated risk scoring), wherein the remedial action comprises an action performable by the equipment (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0052] [0053]; See at least rerouting of package based on delay risk associated with current facility/route. Rerouting the package is understood to constitute and action taken by equipment, i.e., a truck).
While Vaidyanathan applies performance threshold (i.e., a form of KPI) to logistics measure regarding logistic facility operation and package transit milestones to determine delay risk associated with facilities and transit conditions, Vaidyanathan fails to refer to the performance thresholds as KPIs. Similarly, while Vaidyanathan discloses alteration of an action plan to re-route packages based on measured thresholds and associated calculated delay risk associated with facilities in the logistics network and it is reasonably understood that the re-routing involved communication to equipment transporting the packages, Vaidyanathan fails to expressly state that communications with the equipment are performed.
However, as evidenced by Nicotera, the use of specified KPIs in the context of predictive analytics and planning in a warehouse environment to direct and adjust an operation plan and further transmit instructions to implement actions via autonomous equipment is well-known in the art (Nicotera et al.; paragraphs [0033] [0059]-[0065]; See at least KPI measuring of performance and action plan adjustments including transmission of instructions to autonomous warehouse equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the alteration of an action plan to re-route packages based on measured thresholds features of Vaidyanathan by further including the use of specified KPIs in the context of predictive analytics and planning in a warehouse environment to direct and adjust an operation plan and further transmit instructions to implement actions via autonomous equipment as taught by Nicotera. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of applying performance indicators to logistics operations to adjust operations based on an assessed risk. As Vaidyanathan disclose the use of alteration of an action plan to re-route packages based on measured thresholds in the context of a system and method for applying performance indicators to logistics operations to adjust operations based on an assessed risk and Nicotera similarly discloses the utility the use of specified KPIs in the context of predictive analytics and planning in a warehouse environment to direct and adjust an operation plan and further transmit instructions to implement actions via autonomous equipment in the context of a system and method for applying performance indicators to logistics operations to adjust operations based on an assessed risk, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by improving operational efficiency by dynamically adapting logistics operations in advance of developing risks.
With respect to claim 2, Vaidyanathan discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to automatically instruct the equipment to alter one or more operations in response to the determined site risk index (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0052] [0053]; See at least rerouting of package based on delay risk associated with current facility/route. Rerouting the package is understood to constitute and action taken by equipment, i.e., a truck).
With respect to claim 3, Vaidyanathan discloses a system wherein the response further comprises a user approval and user adjustment associated with the action plan (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0087]-[0089]; See at least adjustment to transit plan triggered by calculated risk levels); and wherein the one or more processors are further programmed by the computer-executable instructions to modify the action plan based on the user adjustment (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0087]-[0089]; See at least processing system implements the modified transit plan).
With respect to claim 4, Vaidyanathan discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further programmed by the computer-executable instructions to: receive, from the database, an updated threshold performance indicator associated with the facility responsive to the remedial action (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraph [0084]-[0085]; See at least thresholds and proactive scoring, i.e., updating thresholds); process the updated threshold performance indicator to assign an updated site risk index of the facility by comparing the updated threshold performance to the expected value (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraph [0085]-[0086]; See at least comparisons of reactive scoring and thresholds to expectations/fingerprint); determine, based on the updated site risk index, a need to implement an updated action plan (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraph [0088]; See at least transit plan adjustment); generate, based on the updated site risk index and the updated threshold performance indicator, the updated action plan (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraph [0088]; See at least update transit plan); and transmit the updated action plan to the equipment (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraph [0088]-[0089]; See at least re-routing of package).
With respect to claim 5, Vaidyanathan discloses a system wherein the database comprises a plurality of threshold performance indicators, each threshold performance indicator of the plurality of threshold performance indicators associated with at least one of a plurality of facilities (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0046]-[0047] [0053] [0075]; See at least risk levels and performance thresholds).
With respect to claim 6, as noted above, while Vaidyanathan discloses alteration of an action plan to re-route packages based on measured thresholds and associated calculated delay risk associated with facilities in the logistics network and it is reasonably understood that the re-routing involved communication to equipment transporting the packages, Vaidyanathan fails to expressly state that communications with the equipment are performed.
However, Nicotera discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further programmed by the computer-executable instructions to: transmit an alert to a user, the alert comprising an indication that the remedial action has been transmitted to the equipment (Nicotera et al.; paragraphs [0033] [0059]-[0065]; See at least KPI measuring of performance and action plan adjustments including transmission of instructions to autonomous warehouse equipment).
Regarding claim 6, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 6 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 7, Vaidyanathan discloses a system wherein the action plan is generated based in part on a previously implemented action plan (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0053] [0087]-[0089]; See at least generation of new plan from old plan).
With respect to claim 8, as noted above, while Vaidyanathan discloses alteration of an action plan to re-route packages based on measured thresholds and associated calculated delay risk associated with facilities in the logistics network and it is reasonably understood that the re-routing involved communication to equipment transporting the packages, Vaidyanathan fails to expressly state that communications with the equipment are performed.
However, Nicotera discloses a system further comprising a plurality of equipment associated with the facility, the plurality of equipment in communication with the database (Nicotera et al.; paragraphs [0033] [0059]-[0065]; See at least KPI measuring of performance and action plan adjustments including transmission of instructions to autonomous warehouse equipment).
Regarding claim 8, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 8 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 9, Vaidyanathan discloses a system wherein the site risk index indicates a likelihood of a delay in the processing of mail by the facility (Vaidyanathan et al.; paragraphs [0051]-[0052] [0088]; See at least corrective re-routing based on risk of delay associated with facilities).
Claims 10-18 and 20 substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 1-9 as directed to performed method/process. With respect to these elements, Vaidyanathan discloses performance of the method/process steps employing the enabling systems and executable instructions. Accordingly, claims 10-18 and 20 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 1-9.
Subject Matter Overcoming Art of Record
[5] Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Neither Vaidyanathan nor Nicotera disclose or render obvious the elements of claim 18 including at least: “…wherein the key performance indicator is an average container dwell time of the facility, and the method further comprising: receiving from a camera of the facility a first image of the facility representing a location; identifying a plurality of trailers in the first image; determining a location of each of the plurality of trailers; receiving from the camera a second image of the facility, wherein the second image comprises image information of substantially the location as represented in the first image; identifying a second plurality of trailers in the second image; determining the location of each of the second plurality of trailers; comparing each trailer of the plurality of trailers to each trailer of the second plurality of trailers to generate a first result; comparing the location of each trailer of the plurality of trailers to each trailer of the second plurality of trailers to generate a second result; determining a number of trailers closed not loaded; assessing the number of trailers closed not loaded to a historical trailers closed not loaded to create a trend value; generating the key performance indicator based on the trend value; and storing the key performance indicator in the database…”
Conclusion
[6] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Breier et al., USER INTERFACE MODIFICATIONS FOR INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0357820, paragraphs [0027]-[0028]: Relevant Teachings: Breier discloses a system/method that provides an interface display that enables a user to select KPIs to determine planning options and impact on the selected KPIs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights