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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant’s communication filled on 09/17/2025.
37 CFR § 1.105 - Requirement for Information
Claims 1,11 were amended to recite, among others: “obtaining”, “electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region, wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, , social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings”, for subsequent “remediating”. Examiner follows MPEP 704.11(b) III and submits that the Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application. Examiner’s search appears to suggest Applicant publicly used a product or service to obtain or gather social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps as evidenced by at least the following references
- #1: “How USPS used review data to improve customer service and reduce costs, thesilab webpages, May 17, 2023”, emphasis on the excerpts of p.2 last ¶-p.3 immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
50
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
122
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
364
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
- #2: Business Intelligence at USPS Listening and Insights, youtube excerpt, Onclusive Social channel, May 8, 2019
PNG
media_image4.png
1132
866
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The information is required to identify products and services embodying the disclosed subject matter of gathering social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps and identify the properties of similar products and services found in the prior art.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide any additional citation and a copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the applicant’s invention, particularly as to gathering social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps
For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter. Specifically, the Examiner requests brochures, manuals, white papers, training materials, demos, sales presentations or the like related to the aforementioned product(s) software and/or other software directed to the gathering social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide the citation and a copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to draft the claimed subject matter. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in distinguishing the claimed subject matter from the prior art.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the disclosed prior art of gathering social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the claimed subject matter.
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure. The fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained will be accepted as a complete response to the requirement for that item. This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete response to the enclosed Office action must include a complete response to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action, which is 3 months.
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
I. Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8-11,17-20 have been amended and Claims 2,12 have been canceled by Applicant.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are currently pending of which:
Claims 3,4,13,14 have been withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected inventions.
Claims 1,5-11,15-20 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
II. Objections to Claims 1,11 17
Objections to Claims1,11 17 in the previous act are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment adopted in the same manner or similar manner as suggested by the Examiner.
III. 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claims 8-10,18-20
35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claims 8-10,18-20 in the previous act is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment as suggested by Examiner.
IV. 35 USC 101 rejection
Applicant focuses the 101 arguments on two clauses at independent Claims 1,11:
Clause [1]: “generating, by the electronic processor, a heatmap representing the
electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed”
Clause [2]: “remediating an operational issue at the logistical node in the geographic
region that corresponds to the operational issue hotspot, wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node”
Step 2A prong one: Remarks 09/17/2025 p.7 last ¶-p.8 ¶1 argues that Clause [1] of “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying an “operational issue hotspot” is recited with specificity and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Next, Remarks 09/17/2025 p.8 ¶ 2 -p.9 ¶2 argues that Clause [2] of “remediating an operational issue at a logistical node” such as “increasing the number of sorting machines” at independent Claims 1,11 concerns logistical systems and are real-world physical changes to a logistical node’s sorting machines that do not fall within the abstract organizing human activities or mental processes.
Examiner considered the prong 1 argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
Clause [1]: Examiner first points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III B, ¶1 stating: “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea”. Here, aside from allegation of specificity Remarks 09/17/2025 p.7 last ¶-p.8 ¶1 provides not rebuttal why “generating...a heat map” including displaying “operational issue hotspot” cannot be performed by physical aids such as pen and paper.
Examiner responds to the specificity argument above by pointing to MPEP 2106.04 I ¶3 which states that narrow laws that have limited applications are still ineligible. Thus, no matter how narrow, limited or specific the “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying “operational issue hotspot” “corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region” would be, it would not preclude the claims from reciting describing or at least setting forth the abstract exception. In fact MPEP 2106.04 I cites Myriad 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 to clarify just that; namely that an alleged “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. The Myriad rationale supra was corroborated by SAP Am Inc v InvestPic cited by MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) I. C (i). Specifically, in SAP Am Inc v InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit clarified “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims [would] recite, the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm”. Here, following the MPEP 2106.04 I, the Examiner finds that no matter how allegedly specific the “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying “operational issue hotspot” would be, its character remains undeniably abstract.
Thus, the Examiner has successfully demonstrated that “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying an “operational issue hotspot” can be performed using physical aids such as pen and paper no matter of the specificity of the “operational issue hotspot”.
Also, separate from the pen and paper test above, the Examiner reminds Applicant that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III does not limit the use of physical aids to only pen and paper, but rather expands said test at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C#1,#2,#3, to also include computer aids, such as:
- #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer,
- # 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment,
- # 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.
Here, the Applicant provides no rebuttal as to why “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying an “operational issue hotspot” cannot be performed by aid of a computer such as a tool or computer environment. This finding is the more important, as Mary Beth Levin, one of the current inventors of the current Application, shows that “generating ... a heat map” of issues can be performed by commercially available computer tools or environments, as demonstrated by at least the following publication “How USPS used review data to improve customer service and reduce costs, thesilab webpages, May 17 2023” emphasis on page 3 ¶1 where Mary Beth Levin’s team is cited as having used the commercially available Khoros as social customer response tool that gathered unstructured customer data such as reviews sites to forums to comments, sections on news sites, and Yext [another known computer tool] to pull on line reviews, and finally Tableau [as yet another known computer tool] to visualize the data on a heatmap. Upon a closer investigation, the Examiner finds that neither the Applicant of the current Application, nor any of the current inventors, appear to have invented Khoros, Yext, Tableau computer tools, nor does the Applicant of the current Application or the current inventors appear to allege as much.
In conclusion, Examiner successfully demonstrated that “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying an “operational issue hotspot” can be performed using computer aids, based on a preponderance of both legal evidence [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2,#3] and factual evidence [Khoros, Yext, Tableau], no matter of the specificity of the “operational issue hotspot”.
Clause [2]: Aside from a mere allegation, the Applicant provides no evidence for real-world physical changes that would render independent Claims 1,11 eligible as the result of the “increasing the number of sorting machines”. Rather the remed[y] of the “operational issue” of backlog demand (i.e. “delay” in light of preamble of independent Claims 1,11, “issue resolution times” at the first limitation of independent Claims 1,11) based on increased labor supply, remains an issue of microeconomics, namely supply versus demand management, balancing, judgement or mitigation, no matter if said increase in supply, is intended as the supply of human labor or intended as supply of machinery, as currently claimed. Thus, it is reasoned that “remediating an operational issue at a logistical node” such as “increasing the number of sorting machines” clearly falls within the fundamental economic and/or commercial practices and principles of Certain methods of Organizing Human Activities as tested at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A,B.
This legal finding is further corroborated by Michael Ritter, Assessing the Impact of the United States Postal System and Election Administration on Absentee and Mail Voting in the 2012 to 2020 U.S. Midterm and Presidential Elections, Election Law Journal Volume 22, Number 2, 2023 p.7 2nd column citing Tierney, John T. 1988. The U.S. Postal Service: The Status and Prospects of a Free Enterprise. Auburn Publishing House at 28 to stress that The Postal Reorganization Act also vested ultimate authority for various postal decisions—including making final decisions on postal rate changes, DECIDING ON WHETHER MORE OR LESS MAIL SORTING MACHINES ARE NEEDED" (emphasis added). A similar corroborating disclosure is provided by the following refence: USPS brings new package sorting machine to Colorado Springs, youtube, KRDO13 Colorado Springs Channel, Aug 12, 2021, Slides 1-5, showing the increase of sorting machines in Colorado Springs area as a result of increased demand.
To be also clear, the evidence set forth by Michael Ritter or Tierney, John T or Mary Beth Levin or any other author above, are presented by Examiner as mere corroborating examples to validate the abstract character of the argued limitations, and that of the claims as a whole. Such references are not necessarily used to make a case for or against novelty or obviousness, because the two statutes are different. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71,101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 to show that "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”. Also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶1-¶2 clarifying that the term fundamental is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known but rather as a building block of the modern economy.
Here, following the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶1-¶2 test above, the Examiner finds the at least Clause [2] of “remediating an operational issue at a logistical node” such as “increasing the number of sorting machines” at independent Claims 1,11, is an exemplary building block of the modern economy. At most the Applicant’s attempts to remedy an entrepreneurial and abstract concept. Yet, MPEP 2106.05(a) II is clear that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not improvement in technology. Similarly MPEP 2106.04 I cites “Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979” to stress that even a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. Thus, Examiner submits, in the arguendo, just for the sake of the argument, that even a groundbreaking, innovative or brilliant system, method and system of “increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” to allow for “remediating an operational issue at the logistical node in the geographic region that corresponds to the operational issue hotspot” as recited at independent Claims 1,11 and raised by Applicant above at Clause [2] would similarly not render the claims patent eligible. Simply put, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A, they would still represent a fundamental economic practice or principle and/or building block of modern economy which still falls well-within the realm of the abstract idea. The “Myriad” rationale supra was also corroborated by SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C (i). Specifically, in SAP Am Inc v InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit clarified that “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims [would] recite, the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm”. In a similar vein MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II cites Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to show that acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content, falls within the abstract realm of the abstract exception. It then follows that here the acquiring or obtaining of feedback or content form sources such as email, phone messages web-based revies or social media to display hotspot heatmap or updates about said content would not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception.
Based on the preponderance of evidence shown above, it is reasoned that Clause [1] and Clause [2] above, do not preclude the independent Claims 1,11 from reciting, or at a minimum describing or setting forth the abstract exception.
Step 2A prong two: Remarks 09/17/2025 p.9 ¶3-p.10 ¶ cites Original Specification ¶ [0013] to argue that Clauses [1] and [2] above, solve the prior art problem of correctly identifying and acting on feedback regarding a wide geographic area, when some amount of negative feedback is always present given the size of the area. Specifically, Applicant argues generating a heat map according to Clause [1] and remediating an operational issue by physically increasing the number of operational sorting machines according to Clause [2] is an improvement over prior art techniques, in that it has been empirically shown to decrease negative feedback citing Original Specification ¶ [0056]-¶ [0058] and has even been recognized by awards granted by national organizations citing Original Specification ¶ [0055].
Examiner fully considered the Applicant prong two argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by reincorporating all findings and rationales above. Examiner again notes that most if not nearly all, of the argued features of generating a heat map according at Clause [1] and remediating an operational issue by physically increasing the number of operational sorting machines at Clause [2], appear to be integral components of the abstract exception itself (prong one), as opposed to additional elements (prong two) other than the abstract idea itself.
Such entrepreneurial, economic, commercial and thus abstract character of the claims is corroborated by the Applicant’s own admission of the commercial benefit at Original Specification ¶ [0055] “An embodiment of the invention has achieved commercial success, and a summary of various quantification thereof and an associated award follows” and cited by Remarks 09/17/2025 p.10 ¶2. Yet, MPEP 2106.05(a) II is clear that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not improvement in technology. Similarly MPEP 2106.04 I cites “Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979” to stress that even a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. Thus, the Examiner submits, in the arguendo, that even a groundbreaking, innovative or brilliant system and method for “generating a heat map” (Clause [1]) and “remediating an operational issue by physically increasing the number of operational sorting machines” (Clause [2]) should similarly not render the claims patent eligible. Simply put, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A, the features raised by Applicant above, still represent a fundamental, economic practices or principles and/or building blocks of modern economy which still fall well-within the realm of the abstract exception. The “Myriad” rationale was corroborated by SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C (i). Specifically, in SAP Am Inc v InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit clarified: “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims [would] recite, the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm”.
Here, similar to “SAP”, Remarks 09/17/2025 p.10 ¶2 argue in favor of solving the prior art problem of correctly identifying and acting on feedback regarding a wide geographic area, when some amount of negative feedback is always present given the size of the area, and thus should be interpreted as improvement of the abstract idea itself as opposed to improvement to actual technology. In fact MPEP 2106.05(a) I cites BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688,1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); to show that providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, would represent an improvement to the information stored by a database, which is not equivalent to improvement in database’s functionality. Here identifying of a hotpot for subsequent remediation as argued by Remarks 09/17/2025 p.10 ¶2 would at most represent improvement to business information, not an improvement in actual technology.
As per Applicant’s reliance on Examples 47 and 48 at Remarks 09/17/2025 p.9 ¶3-p.10 ¶1, the Examiner reminds that all 101 examples provided by USPTO, including Examples 47 and 48 are hypothetical and non-precedential. USPTO “2019 PEG, 101 Examples 37-42 document entitled “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas” p.1, ¶1 2nd sentence. “The examples below are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under the 2019 PEG” corroborating “May 2016 Update: Memorandum - Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection”, p.5 ¶2 Section C: “USPTO issued examples in conjunction with the Interim Eligibility Guidance, including […] July 2015 Update Appendix I: Examples […]; These examples, many of which are hypothetical, were drafted to show exemplary analyses under the Interim Eligibility Guidance and are intended to be illustrative of the analysis only. While some of the fact patterns draw from U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, the examples do not carry the weight of court decisions. Therefore, the examples should not be used as a basis for a subject matter eligibility rejection. Similarly see July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, pertaining to Examples 47-49, p.1, ¶1, 2nd sentence: “The examples below are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis performed using MPEP 2106, and of the particular issues noted below in the Issue Spotting Chart”.
In any event here, the claims are irreconcilably different than Examples 47 and 48. Specifically, at no point do the claims recite anything remotely analogous to detecting potentially malicious network packets and taking real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses as in hypothetical Claim 3 of nonprecedential Example 47. Also, at no point do the current claims recite anything remotely analogous to the technical improvements of how the [deep neural network] DNN is trained on source separation aids in the cluster assignments to correspond to the sources identified in the mixed speech signal, which were then converted into separate speech signals in the time domain to generate a sequence of words from the spectral features, thereby making individual transcription of each separated speech signal possible as in claim 3 of USPTO’s Example 48.
Rather, as explained by Applicant at Remarks 09/17/2025 p. 10 ¶2, the independent claims are merely identifying and acting on feedback regarding a wide geographic area, when some amount of negative feedback is always present given the size of the area, possibly using computer aids [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C] and/or an additional computer-based element [MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)] to achieve a desired, yet abstract, entrepreneurial, commercial goal or objective, as read in light of the Original Specification ¶ [0055].
In conclusion, Examiner submits that the argued limitations still recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception (Step 2A prong 1), with no additional, computer-based elements, capable to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2), and for similar reasons incapable to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, the argued claims are patent ineligible.
V. The Cited Art Fails to Teach or Suggest the Claimed Obtaining
Remarks 09/17/2025 p.10 ¶3-¶4 argues that since claims 1,9 have now been amended to remove recitation of “delivery delay times” in the first limitation of: “obtaining”, “electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region, wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, , social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings”, the primary reference of Vaidyanathan et al US 20230169447 A1 by FedEx hereinafter FedEx does not teach said “obtaining” limitation.
Applicant’s argument V. is considered by is moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Examiner now relies on Glissmann US 20120253858 A1 to teach or at least suggests:
- “wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews” (Glissmann ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: A target business architecture describes the products and/or service strategy, and the organizational, functional, process, information, performance, and geographic aspects of the business environment, based on business principles, business goals, and strategic drivers. ¶ [0033] 2nd, 4th sentences At step (216), the manager selects a social media metric type use to create social media metric instances. Examples of social media metric types include, but are not limited to… sentiment…Sentiment is a characteristic that provides a score of how often products have been mentioned [interpreted as reviewed] positively, neutrally, or negatively by the social media. ¶ [0040] 8th sentence: For example, sentiment may be determined based upon positive or negative words present within the returned hits) “social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings”;
Thus, the prior art teaches or suggests the contested “obtaining” limitation.
VI. The Cited Art Fails to Teach or Suggest the Claimed Remediating
Remarks 09/17/2025 p.11-p.13 ¶3 argues the prior art does not teach or suggests
- “remediating an operational issue at the logistical node in the geographic region that corresponds to the operational issue hotspot, wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” [bolded emphasis added]
Applicant’s argument VI. is considered but is moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Vaidyanathan et al US 20230169447 A1 by FedEx hereinafter FedEx still teaches:
- “remediating an operation issue at the logistical node in the geographic region that corresponds to the operational issue hotspot
(FedEx ¶ [0101] 5th sentence: learning the points of failure by facility, by facility type, by scan type, by customer, by original/destination pairs and so forth allows the user to consider remedial actions to improve operations of logistics network 100). However,
FedEx does not explicitly recite: “wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” as claimed. Nevertheless
Jory Heckman, Judge rules USPS can move limited mail sorting machines to improve service, April 6th, 2021 hereinafter Heckman in analogous mail operations teaches/suggests:
- “wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” (Heckman p.1 ¶2 UPS move some of its sorting equipment under conditions necessary to improve service overall and to accommodate unprecedented growth in package value. p.2 ¶5, ¶7 USPS can move mail-processing machines to facilities with greater need, to ensure the Postal Service’s machines are pale where they are needed most).
Thus, the prior art teaches or at least suggests the contested “remediating” limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,5-11,15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1,11 are independent and have been amended to each recite, among others: “A method of detecting and remediating logistical operational delays, the method comprising:” (independent Claim 1) / “A system for detecting and remediating logistical operational delays, the system comprising an electronic processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction that when executed by the electronic processor cause the electronic processor to perform actions comprising” (independent Claim 11)
- “obtaining”, “electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region, wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, ”, (Claims 1,11)
Since the body of independent Claims 1,11 no longer recite “delivery delay times”, while the preamble of independent Claims 1,11 still recite “method” and “system” of “detecting and remediating logistical operational delays”, it is now unclear as to the metes and bounds that said independent Claims 1,11 are intended to cover as tested per MPEP 2173.02.
Claims 1,11 are recommended to be amended to each recite at the preamble: A method of detecting and remediating logistical an operational issue , the method comprising: (independent Claim 1) / “A system for detecting and remediating logistical an operational issue , the system comprising an electronic processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction that when executed by the electronic processor cause the electronic processor to perform actions comprising” (independent Claim 11)
Claims 5-10 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 1.
Claims 15-20 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 11.
Clarification and/or correction is/are required.
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 1,5-11,15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of “remediating logistical operational delays” at the preamble and last limitation of independent Claims 1,11 and exemplified as “increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” at independent Claims 1,11. This describe or set forth the risk mitigation of the fundamental economical practices [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A] as part of the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II], with the term fundamental not used in the sense of being old or well-known but as building block of modern economy [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2]. Here a fundamental concepts of economic or supply management for “hotspot” demand, interpretable as risk mitigation of “remediating logistical operational delays” (independent Claims 1,11) is exemplified as “increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” (Claims 1,11) as such fundamental building blocks of modern economy. Further, such risk mitigation of “remediating logistical operational delays” is based on “operational issue hotspot” [risk] “corresponding to a logistical node” [or business component] “in the geographic region” (Claims 1,11), with such “logistical node” exemplified to comprise “hub or a distribution center” (dependent Claims 6,16) as confirmation for the business components and associated business relationships. All these set forth equally commercial operations or relationships [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B] of the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities grouping [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II]. At their turn, such operations are based on business interactions [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B] or social interactions or activities [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C] set forth as “electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” (independent Claims 1,11), and “operational feedback response times” (dependent Claims 10, 20).
Also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A vi cites Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017) to state that using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, is another example of fundamental economic principles or practices, while MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B cites In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979) to state that using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, is also an example of commercial interactions. It then follows that here “extracting package tracking information from the electronic operational feedback; and determining the geographic parts corresponding to the package tracking information” (dependent Claims 8,18), “extracting a tag from the electronic operational feedback; and displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region” (dependent Claims 9,19) is not meaningfully different than the abstract marking communicating information about the mail object in “Secured Mail Solutions” supra, while the racking is not meaningfully different than the abstract, algorithmic determining of visits by a business representative to a client, as in “Maucorps” supra.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence to state that the subgroupings of fundamental economical practices, commercial interactions of sales activities and business relations, cover activity that involves multiple people and that certain activity between a person and a computer may still fall within the Certain methods of organizing human activity.
It then follows that here “obtaining, by an electronic processor, electronic operational feedback” “comprises at least one of customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times” (independent Claims 1,11), “customer email messages or customer phone messages” (dependent Claims 8-10, 18-20), would not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C which cites BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286,127 USPQ2d 1688,1691 to state that considering historical usage information while inputting data is an example of managing relationships or interactions which also falls within the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C cites Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to state that acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content without interfering with the person’s primary activity also falls within the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
It then follows that “obtaining” or acquiring content as “electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” at independent Claims 1,11, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, as “a heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” at independent Claims 1,11, then updated version of the previously-acquired content, as “displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback” at dependent Claims 7,17 when the information source updates its content, here by “obtaining second electronic operational feedback comprising social media communications” at dependent Claims 7,17 would also fall within the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a) last ¶: “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings”. Based on this, Examiner submit that the claims could be also argued to describe or set forth observation, evaluation and judgement of the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping. as enumerated by MPEP 2106.05(a)(2) III. For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A ¶7-¶8 cites Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to state that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of collection and analysis is example of mental process.
- Such collecting or observation is set forth as “obtaining” “electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region”, “comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” (independent Claims 1,11), “obtaining second electronic operational feedback comprising social media communications” (dependent Claims 7,17)
- Such analysis or evaluation is set forth as “generating”, “a heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” Claims 1,11)
- Such judgment is set forth the broad recitation of “remediating”, (Claims 1,11)
- Such display of certain results of the collection and analysis, are set forth here by “displaying heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” (independent Claims 1,11), “heatmap is partitioned according to ZIP Codes” (dependent Claims 5,15), “displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback” (dependent Claims 7,17), “displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region” (dependent Claims 9,19), “displaying a second heatmap representing operational feedback response times” (dependent Claims 10,20).
Also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D, 4th bullet point cites Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1359 to state that a post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a computer network recites mental processes. It then follows that here recitations of “the logistical node comprises a hub or a distribution center” (dependent Claims 6, 16) and “increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” (independent Claims 1, 11) as “remediating” based on “the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” (independent Claims 1,11) could also be argued to recite, describe or set forth the abstract mental processes.
Equally important, the fact that “obtaining” the abstract “electronic operational feedback”, and generating and “displaying the “heatmap” are performed using “electronic processor” (independent Claims 1,11), and not by pen and paper, do not necessarily preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract idea because according to MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C: #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, #2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, # 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, are all considered to still recite the abstract idea. For example, MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C #2 cites FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Federal Circuit found ineligible the analysis of information according to one of several rules related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user.
Specifically, the Federal Circuit found unpersuasive that accessing, compiling and combining information from disparate information sources to generate a full picture of a activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like, render the claims less abstract and eligible. It then follows that here, the access, compilation and combination of information for “generating” a full picture or “heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” (independent Claims 1,11), “displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback” (dependent Claims 7, 17), “displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region” (dependent Claims 9,19), “displaying a second heatmap representing operational feedback response times” (dependent Claims 10,20) would similarly not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract idea.
In an abundance of caution, the use of computer aids, as identified and tested above with respect to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III #1,#2,#3, will more granularly tested below.
For now, it is clear, that given the preponderance of legal evidence above, the claims’ character as a whole is undeniably abstract. (Step 2A prong one).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found, to merely apply the above abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow the abstract character of the claims to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
Here, “electronic processor” at independent Claims 1,11, instruct[ed] according to the “non-transitory computer readable medium” at independent Claim 11, was previously identified as a computer aid in performing the abstract idea. Now, even when construed as additional computer-based element, it will still not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f) (i)1, (iii)2 and v3 the functionality of said “electronic processor” would represent applying a business method on general purpose computer, further including monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer, and tailoring information and provide it to user on a generic computer.
Here, such applying of a business method is represented by “remediating logistical operational delays” (independent Claims 1,11).
Here such monitoring audit log data is represented by “the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” (independent Claims 1,11).
Here, such tailoring of information and providing it on a computer is represented by the capabilities of “the electronic processor” “generating” “a heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” (independent Claims 1,11). The same rationale would apply to “displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback” (dependent Claims 7,9), “displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region” (dependent Claims 9,19), “displaying a second heatmap representing operational feedback response times” (dependent Claims 10,20) assuming, in the arguendo, their computerized implementation.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1 is also clear that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) represent invocation of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical appclaition. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1-¶2 cites TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to state that the combination of a computer server and telephone unit, where the telephone unit is used to make calls and transmitting information, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information, are examples of merely applying the abstract idea. Thus, Examiner submits, in the arguendo, that even if Claims 8,9,18,19 would be computerized in “extracting package tracking information from the electronic operational feedback” (dependent Claims 8,18) and “extracting a tag from the electronic operational feedback” (dependent Claims 9,19) such recitations would still represent examples of extracting classification information from received data, which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by similar reasons as those of TLI Communications cited by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1.
Alternatively, the “electronic processor” at independent Claims 1,11, could be viewed as an example of narrowing to a technological environment the combination of collecting, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, as identified above. Yet, according to MPEP 2106.05(h) vi4 the narrowing of the combination of collecting, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The same field of use or technological environment would apply to the “increasing a number of operational sorting machines”, as analogous to human labor, “at the logistical node”
In conclusion, the Examiner has provided a preponderance of legal evidence showing that the general level of computerization, even when considered from the prism of additional computer-based elements, does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow it to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II and carries over the findings at MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h) as a sufficient option for evidence that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more, without relying on conventionality test of MPEP 2106.05(d).
Even assuming arguendo, that further evidence would still be require to demonstrate conventionality of the additional elements, the Examiner would further point to MPEP 2106.05(d) demonstrating conventionality of similar computer elements such as “electronic processor” to perform conventional functions to: receive or transmit data over a network5 / gather statistics6 / record a customer’s order7 and electronic recordkeeping8, electronically extract data9 as well as arrange a hierarchy of groups, sorting information10, which also do not provide significantly more.
Here, receiving or transmitting data / gathering statistics are represented by capabilities of the instructed “electronic processor” in “obtaining” “electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region, wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” (independent Claims 1,11) and possibly “obtaining second electronic operational feedback comprising social media communications”; (dependent Claims 7,17).
Here, electronically extracting data11 / electronic recordkeeping12 are represented by “extracting package tracking information from the electronic operational feedback” (dependent Claims 8,18), “extracting a tag from the electronic operational feedback” (dependent Claims9,19), assuming such functions would be computerized.
Here, arranging a hierarchy of groups and sorting information are represented by “electronic processor” “generating” “heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” (Claims 1,11)
If necessary, Examiner would also point, in the arguendo, as evidence to the high level of generality of additional elements in Original Specification, again, assuming computer operation:
- Original Specification ¶ [0006] 2nd sentence, reciting at high level of generality: “The system includes an electronic processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium including instruction”
- Original Specification ¶ [0059], reciting at high level of generality: “Certain embodiments can be performed using a computer program or set of programs. The computer programs can exist in a variety of forms both active and inactive. For example, the computer programs can exist as software program(s) comprised of program instructions in source code, object code, executable code or other formats; firmware program(s), or hardware description language (HDL) files. Any of the above can be embodied on a transitory or non-transitory computer readable medium, which include storage devices and signals, in compressed or uncompressed form. Exemplary computer readable storage devices include conventional computer system RAM (random access memory), ROM (read-only memory), EPROM (erasable, programmable ROM), EEPROM (electrically erasable, programmable ROM), and magnetic or optical disks or tapes”.
- Original Specification ¶ [0060] reciting at high level of generality: “While the invention has been described with reference to the exemplary embodiments thereof, those skilled in the art will be able to make various modifications to the described embodiments without departing from the true spirit and scope. The terms and descriptions used herein are set forth by way of illustration only and are not meant as limitations. In particular, although the method has been described by examples, the steps of the method can be performed in a different order than illustrated or simultaneously. Those skilled in the art will recognize that these and other variations are possible within the spirit and scope as defined in the following claims and their equivalents”.
In conclusion, Claims 1,5-11,15-20 although directed to statutory categories (“method” or process at Claims 1, 5-10 and “apparatus” or machine at Claims 11, 15-20,) they still recite or set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer-based elements, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B).
Thus, the Claims 1,5-11,15-20 are believed to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,6,7,11,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Vaidyanathan et al US 20230169447 A1 by FedEx hereinafter FedEx, in view of
Glissmann US 20120253858 A1 hereinafter Glissmann, and in further view of
Jory Heckman, Judge rules USPS can move limited mail sorting machines to improve service, April 6th, 2021 hereinafter Heckman. As per,
Claims 1,11. FedEx teaches: “A method of detecting and remediating logistical operational delays, the method comprising: / A system for detecting and remediating logistical operational delays, the system comprising an electronic processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction that when executed by the electronic processor cause the electronic processor to perform actions comprising” (FedEx ¶ [0040]-¶ [0041]):
- “obtaining, by an electronic processor, electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region” (FedEx ¶ [0050] 4th sentence: personnel of shipping entity may be given ability to filter information for any packages in logistics network 100 and identify specific facilities, days of week, and the like within logistics network 100 where packages are becoming at risk to identify potential points of failure within the network. ¶ [0093] last two sentences: allow them to monitor the packages of interest. this allows personnel [or employees] of the shipping entity to monitor points of failure within the network that give rise to the delays that impact the ability to deliver packages by stated time. Other examples at ¶ [0049] 5th sentence: web server provide information to customers expecting to receive the packages via a data feed to a dedicated application or to a website that the customer accesses via the Internet. ¶ [0098] last sentence: Thus, personnel of the shipping entity can gather a snapshot of information that provides insights into the operation of the network as well as the status of shipments for a given customer),
“”;
- “generating, by the electronic processor, a heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed”; (FedEx Fig.19, ¶ [0099] 2nd-3rd sentences: example 1900 is suited to personnel of the shipping entity looking to find points of failure with logistics network 100 that cause delay resulting in the risk of the package being delivered after stated commit time. example 1900 includes heat map 1902 representing the locations within logistics network 100 where delays are occurring based on the number of violated fingerprint thresholds found during the reactive and proactive scoring. The delays are shown as distributed within the days of the week in chart 1904. ¶ [0101] 1st-2nd, 5th sentences: table 1930 of information is displayed in addition to heat map 1902 and chart 1904 to provide specific details to user. For instance, the packages resulting from the application of the filters that appear in the table 1930 show the event type in column 1932, the event timestamp in column 1934, and the corresponding fingerprint threshold time stamp in column 1936. Learning the points of failure by facility, by facility type, by scan type, by customer, by original/destination pairs and so forth allows the user to consider remedial actions to improve the operations of the logistics network 100) “and”
- “remediating an operation issue at the logistical node in the geographic region that corresponds to the operational issue hotspot, ” (FedEx ¶ [0101] 5th sentence: learning points of failure by facility, facility type, scan, customer, original/destination pairs and so forth allows the user to consider remedial actions to improve operations of logistics network 100).
* However *
FedEx as mapped above does not explicitly recite:
- “wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings”;
- wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” as explicitly claimed.
* Nevertheless *
Glissmann in analogous art of integrating feedback metrics into business architecture and generating heatmaps teaches or suggests:
- “wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews” (Glissmann ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: target business architecture describes the products and/or service strategy, and the organizational, functional, process, information, performance, and geographic aspects of the business environment, based on business principles, goals, and strategic drivers. ¶ [0033] 2nd, 4th sentences:… select a social media metric type use to create social media metric instances. Examples of social media metric types include, but are not limited to… sentiment…Sentiment is a characteristic that provides a score of how often products have been mentioned [interpreted as reviewed] positively, neutrally, or negatively by the social media. ¶ [0040] 8th sentence: sentiment determined based upon positive or negative words present within the returned hits) “social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings”;
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified FedEx’s “method” / “system” to have included Glissmann’s teachings or suggestions in order to have provided a better solution to the known forms of social media analysis that addresses both the inconsistencies and difficulty of obtaining repeatable results (Glissmann ¶ [0003] 4th sentences in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F) by integrating text analytics driven social media metric into a business architecture (Glissmann ¶ [0004] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the fact that both FedEx and Glissmann focus on the creation or generation of heat maps for business operations. Moreover, FedEx ¶ [0049] provides the data feed or feedback for operational feedback and thus would have been prime for modification to include the complementarily operational feedback disclosed by Glissmann supra. Further still, the predictability of such modification would have been further corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by FedEx ¶ [0103]-¶ [0105] in view of Glissmann ¶ [0070].
Additionally, or alternatively, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with integrating feedback metrics into the business architecture. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical, managerial, organizational and communication function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by FedEx in view of Glissmann, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further still *
Heckman in analogous mail operations teaches or suggests:
- “wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” (Heckman p.1 ¶2 UPS move some of its sorting equipment under conditions necessary to improve service overall and to accommodate unprecedented growth in package value. p.2 ¶5, ¶7 USPS can move mail-processing machines to facilities with greater need, to ensure the Postal Service’s machines are pale where they are needed most)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , to have further modified FedEx / Glissmann “method”/”system” to have further included Heckman’s teachings or suggestions in order to have improved the overall service and have accommodated situations of unprecedented growth in package value (Heckman p.1 ¶2 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). This modification would have also been deniable or necessitated by market factors such as the economic needs of unprecedented growth as articulated above and/or Court Order, such as the one issued by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan (Heckman p.1-p.3 in view of MPEP 2143 F). Additionally, or alternatively, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor of business operations. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical, managerial or organizational function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by FedEx/Glissmann in further view of Heckman, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 6,16 FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman as a combination teaches all limitations in claims 1,11.
FedEx further teaches “the logistical node comprises a hub or a distribution center”
(FedEx ¶ [0036] 3rd-4th sentences: Hubs 102,104 where packages arrive are sorted to be transported forward to another hub or be transported to station 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, or 116 associated with the hub. The packages may be transported from a hub 102,104 to an associated. Similarly, FedEx ¶ [0038], ¶ [0039], ¶ [0064]).
Rationales to have modified/combined FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman were presented above.
Claims 7,17 FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman as a combination teaches all limitations in claims 1,11.
FedEx does not explicitly recite: “further comprising”:
- “obtaining second electronic operational feedback comprising social media communications”;
- “and displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback” as claimed.
Glissmann in analogous integrating feedback metrics into business architecture teaches
- “obtaining second electronic operational feedback comprising social media communications”;
(Glissmann ¶ [0029] 6th sentence: In view of information collected through on-line searching values for the created social media metrics are obtained, which may then be viewed on one or more heat maps (108). ¶ [0033] 3rd-5th sentences: Examples of social media metric include, trend, volume, and frequency directly related to sales and/or movement of a product or service, as well as sentiment of how often products have been mentioned positively, neutrally, or negatively by the social media) “and”
- “displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback.
(Glissmann ¶ [0013] Fig.3 is a flow chart illustrating a process establishing a connection between social media metrics and business metrics for each functional component of an enterprise, and for creation of heat maps. ¶ [0036] Once the social media metrics are created and assigned to business components, in Fig.2, a 2nd phase of the setup process takes place. Fig.3 is a flow chart (300) illustrating another part of the setup process wherein an association between social media metrics and business metrics is established for each functional component of an enterprise, as well as creation of heat maps. More specifically, the process shown herein is based upon the setup process wherein it is determined how the social media metrics associate with the existing business metrics. With this connection, heat maps are designed based upon the new social media metrics, as well as their association to the business metric. ¶ [0041] 3rd-5th sentences Each heat map has legend entries for media metrics, which are shown for relevant components. The legend entries reflect the product sentiment of the company, and that of identified competitors. In one embodiment, a legend entry includes indicia, such as colors to identify the product sentiment, such as red if the social media metric is below the minimum value, orange if it is between the minimum and maximum value, and green if it is above the maximum value)
Rationales to have modified/combined FedEx/Glissmann are above and reincorporated.
Rationales to have modified/combined FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman are above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 5,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
FedEx / Glissmann / Heckman as applied to claims 1,11 above, in further view of
Carlson et al, US 20120094639 A1 hereinafter Carlson. As per,
Claims 5,15. FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman teaches all the limitations at claims 1,11 above.
FedEx teaches at Fig.19 ¶ [0100] 4th sentence that a second field 1910 of the heatmap provides for selection of an EAN code to filter the information provided for display.
* However *
FedEx / Glissmann / Heckman as a combination does not explicitly recite:
- “wherein the heatmap is partitioned according to ZIP Codes” as claimed.
* Nevertheless *
Carlson in analogous heat maps applying location info to business processing teaches
- “wherein the heatmap is partitioned according to ZIP Codes”
(Carlson ¶ [0005] last sentence: The heat map may be used to update a database of active spend zip codes, map locations of a plurality of merchant terminals).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified modify FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman’s method/system to have included Carlson’s teaching to have combined location with transaction data, such as transaction history and current transaction information, for a number of beneficial results, including fraud protection, and data collection (Carlson ¶ [0028] 3rd sentence in view of MPEP 2143 F and/or G). The predictability of such modification would have been further corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art and market factors articulated by FedEx ¶ [0103]-[0105] in view of Glissmann ¶ [0070] and Heckman p.1-p.3, and in further view of Carlson ¶ [0139], [0142].
Additionally, or alternatively, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with applying location information to business processing. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical, managerial and organizational function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by FedEx / Glissmann / Heckman in further view of Carlson, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 8,9,18,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman as applied to claims 1,11 above, in view of
Daley et al, US 20200394605 A1 hereinafter Daley, and in further view of
Branavan et al, US 20190251104 A1 hereinafter Branavan. As per,
Claims 8,18 FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman teaches all the limitations at claims 1,11 above. Further
FedEx teaches the alternative re-routing, yet neither FedEx, Glissmann or Heckman, in FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman combination teaches: “the heatmap is partitioned into geographic parts, and wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: the customer the customer the method” / “actions further comprising”:
- “extracting package tracking information from the electronic operational feedback; and”
- “determining the geographic parts corresponding to the package tracking information”
* However *
Daley in analogous dynamic risk-based package delivery teaches/suggests “wherein the heatmap is partitioned into geographic parts, and wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer
(Daley ¶ [0028] tracking component 120 identifies packages of the set of packages having negative delivery status. the negative delivery status indicates a package undelivered to a designated recipient for the package. The negative delivery status may be determined, and logged into delivery information for a package, based on individual complaint (e.g., a registration of loss or theft to the delivery service or distributor), …, police report, combinations thereof, or any other suitable reporting or negative delivery status logging), “the method further comprising”:
- “extracting package tracking information from the electronic operational feedback”;
(Daley ¶ [0047] 6th-7th sentences: risk component 130 identify a delivery anomaly where a risk of theft or non-delivery of packages rises above a specified risk level or threshold during delivery of the set of packages in real-time. Where the risk component 130 detects the delivery anomaly, the risk component 130 transmit the delivery anomaly or indication thereof to scheduling component 140. Where risk component 130 detects the delivery anomaly, the risk component 130 may transmit the delivery anomaly or an indication thereof to the scheduling component 140. ¶ [0048] 1st -2nd sentences: In operation 430, scheduling component 140 modifies a delivery plan for the 2nd set of packages to generate a modified delivery plan. In some embodiments, generation of the modified delivery plan is based on identification of the delivery anomaly. ¶ [0043] 2nd sentence: the change notification include tracking number, original delivery characteristic for the package for which the change notification is generated, and modified delivery characteristic) “and”
- “determining the geographic parts corresponding to the package tracking information”.
(Daley ¶ [0021] 3rd sentence: based on delivery anomaly, the method modifies delivery plan for the second set of packages to generate modified delivery plan. ¶ [0036] last sentence: modifiable characteristics include 2nd drop off or delivery location where selected by a recipient or suggested by the risk component 130. ¶ [0035] 3rd sentence: the delivery plans indicate differing delivery routes, delivery locations and drop off locations).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman “method”/”system” to have further included Daley’s teachings in order to have provided a more comprehensive description of the delivery plan including an efficiency impact (e.g. measure or quantification of a cost to time, efficiency, and money) caused to the delivery route, the delivery vehicle, or other factors relating to package delivery, while also indicating differing delivery routes, differing delivery locations, differing drop off locations, differing vehicle options or suggestions, combinations thereof, and any other suitable information affecting delivery of the second set of packages (Daley ¶ [0035] 2nd-3rd sentences in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). Predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the market forces and the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by FedEx ¶ [0103]-[0105] in view of Glissmann ¶ [0070] and Heckman p.1-p.3, in further view of Daley ¶ [0065], ¶ [0076].
Additionally, or alternatively, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as mere combination of old elements in a similar package delivery field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical, managerial, organizational, and notification function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman in further view of Daley, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further, while *
FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman/Daley combination refers to complains to delivery service distributor (Daley ¶ [0028])
Fe FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman/Daley does not explicitly refer to said complaints as:
- “customer email messages or customer phone messages” as explicitly claimed.
* However *
Branavan in analogues art of collecting and processing customer feedback teaches:
- “customer email messages or customer phone messages”
(Branavan ¶ [0020] 4th sentence: the customer's request may be resolved with a single interaction. For example, where the customer asks, “When is my package arriving?,” the response may be, “Your package is scheduled to arrive on Wednesday and has tracking number 1234”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman/Daley “method”/”system” to have further included Branavan’s teachings to have more effectively and naturally allow the customers to receive a resolution to his request more quickly than with other methods of making requests (Branavan ¶ [0020] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by FedEx ¶ [0103]-[0105] in view of Glissmann ¶ [0070], Heckman p.1-p.3 and Daley ¶ [0065], ¶ [0076], and in further view of Branavan ¶ [0133].
Additionally, or alternatively, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as mere combination of old elements in a similar customer focused field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical, managerial, organizational, and notification function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman/Daley in further view of Branavan, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 9,19 FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman teaches all the limitations at claims 1,11 above.
FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman does not recite: “wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: the customer email messages or the customer phone messages, the method” / “actions further comprising”:
- “extracting a tag from the electronic operational feedback”; “and”
- “displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region”.
* However *
Daley in analogous dynamic risk-based package delivery teaches or suggests “wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: the customer the customer (Daley ¶ [0028] tracking component 120 identifies packages of the set of packages having a negative delivery status. In some embodiments, the negative delivery status indicates a package undelivered to a designated recipient for the package. The negative delivery status may be determined, and logged into delivery information for a package, based on individual complaint (e.g., a registration of loss or theft to the delivery service or distributor), …, police report, combinations thereof, or any other suitable reporting or negative delivery status logging), “the method further comprising”:
- “extracting a tag from the electronic operational feedback”;
(Daley ¶ [0029] 3rd, 5th sentence: the tracking component 120 identify the subset of packages by parsing the delivery info, searching for a delivery tag. The delivery tag indicate positive or negative delivery status. ¶ [0030] 1st sentence: the negative delivery status may indicate reasons for a delivery failure for the package such as: package theft, package rejection, wrong address, or any other suitable reason a package may be rejected, or delivery of a package may have failed. ¶ [0032] to determine the risk matrix, the risk component 130 determines a subset of common characteristics for the subset of packages having the negative delivery status) “and”
- “displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region”
(Daley ¶ [0031] at operation 230, risk component 130 determines risk matrix for package delivery by distributors determined based on the subset of packages with the negative delivery status. The risk matrix may be determined by cross referencing missing or stolen packages against all deliveries and the set of characteristics to determine or detect a pattern. The pattern may be a geographical, route or characteristic pattern, combinations thereof, or any other suitable pattern. The pattern account for loaded parameters. In some instances, the pattern include crime statistics corpus indicating theft locations and other suitable info. Where the pattern includes the crime statistics corpus, risk component 130 incorporate external data, such as police reports, neighborhood watch programs, or any other suitable data indicative of theft or criminal activity applicable to the risk component 130 and generated risk matrix indicating likelihood of package theft. [0033] 1st-2nd sentences: risk component 130 determine delivery probability for each characteristic of the subset of common characteristics determined as a numerical value assigned to each characteristic based on negative effect the characteristic has on risk of theft, a frequency of the common characteristic occurring within the subset of packages, or any risk quantification).
Rationales to have modified/combined FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman/Daley are above and reincorporated.
* Further *
FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman/Daley combination refers to loss complains or inefficiencies to delivery service distributor (Daley ¶ [0028])
FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman/Daley does not explicitly refer to said complaints as:
- “customer email messages or customer phone messages” as explicitly claimed.
* Nevertheless *
Branavan in analogues collecting and processing customer feedback teaches / suggest:
- “customer email messages or customer phone messages”
(Branavan ¶ [0020] 4th sentence: the customer's request may be resolved with a single interaction. For example, where the customer asks, “When is my package arriving?,” the response may be, “Your package is scheduled to arrive on Wednesday and has tracking number 1234”)
Rationales to have modified/combined FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman/Daley with/and Branavan are above and reincorporated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 10,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman as applied to claims 1,11 above, in view of
Eicher et al US 20020099580 A1 hereinafter Eicher. As per,
Claims 10,20 FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman teaches all the limitations at claims 1,11 above.
FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman as combination does not recite: “wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: the customer email messages or the customer phone messages, the method / actions further comprising”:
- “displaying a second heatmap representing operational feedback response times”.
* However *
Eicher in analogues performance-based supply chain management with collaboration environment for dispute resolution teaches/suggests “wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: the customer email messages or the customer phone messages” (Eicher ¶ [0102] 6th sentence: notification communications may be electronic, voice or telephonic, such as electronic mail, instant messaging, facsimile or other forms of electronic communication that occur over internet or communication media), “the method / actions further comprising”:
- “displaying a second heatmap representing operational feedback response times”
(Eicher Figs.16-18, ¶ [0159] 1st-4th sentences: providing alert severity functionality. A deviation from baseline generate a warning severity alert and further (larger) deviations can escalate the severity to error. As many levels of severity as desired may be provided depending on the granularity desired. For example, by analogy, alerts may be green light, yellow light and red light conditions depending on severity. See for example Fig.16 and ¶ [0066] 2nd sentence: noting on-time shipments trending ↑ or ↓ as direction of change from last time period. ¶ [0048] Fig.17 depicts an example view of management alerts that initiated based an operational conditions of participants. For example Fig.17 Jane Manager: Why was the supplier called so often? Supplier Management: We had a training issue with a new employee. After seeing the system generated trends we saw this and have trained him, He will be resolving similar issues in the future with our EDI group here. ¶ [0067] Fig.17 depicts online view of a Metalert issue collaboration. The Metalert has fired based on the operational response summary that has been generated based on response to alerts and a dialog of statements between partners logged to resolve the alert condition. Here, it appears that the supplier of a particular part had to be alerted a number of times and more than 64% of the time, the buyer contacted the supplier. This pattern triggered the Metalert threshold, causing Jane Manager to receive a Metalert. In response, the supplier provides a response to explain the situation. This information is then stored for later use in partner matching and the like. Fig.18 depicts operational response summary characteristics and the response thereto, similar to Fig.17).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman “method”/”system” to have included Eicher’s teachings to have maximized the value of every supply chain relationship by substantially reducing the time and cost of ensuring quality of service, connecting operational decisions to strategic decisions, in quantifying critical tradeoffs among related performance measures allowing the business partners in the system can focus on customers, products, and partners that need it most (see Eicher ¶ [0188] 2nd to 3rd sentences and MPEP 2143 C, D, F, G). Even further the collaborative integration disclosed by Eicher would have added automatic update of partner profiles, suggestions for alternatives when appropriate, proactive notification of issues (with relevant content in context, and tools for secure, collaborative resolution), archiving functionality for institutional knowledge retention, and continuously updated, predictive analytics that recommend what to watch and what performance thresholds appear to be reasonable (see Eicher second part of ¶ [0188], Figs. 10-11, Figs. 16-18 & MPEP 2143 C, D, G).
Additionally, or alternatively, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar tracking partner organizations field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same recording, processing or benchmarking function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by FedEx/Glissmann/Heckman in further view of Eicher, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by FedEx ¶ [0103]-[0105] in view of Glissmann ¶ [0070], Heckman p.1-p.3 in further view of Eicher ¶ [0191].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105. A complete response to this Office action must include a complete response to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant disclosure:
-> 137 New Package Sorting Machines in Time for Holiday Season, undated
-> Jorden Williams, Judge orders Postal Service to restore high-speed mail sorting machines, The Hill Oct 23, 2020
-> US 20170206592 A1 Tracking business performance impact of optimized sourcing algorithms teaching at ¶ [0041] Referring back to Shipment coast analysis methods 300 of FIG. 3, the analysis engine 142 at step 310 automatically creates analysis charts such as a demand destination average zone map. FIG. 6 depicts such an example of a generated demand destination average zone map 600 (average zone at store level-i.e., the average number of shipment zones traveled for orders sourced or shipped from each particular node/store to reach their destinations-where shipment zones are standard measurements of distance used by retailers and carriers like FedEx and UPS). This map 600 is a “heat” map depicting average zones at a store level as may be visualized by the BI dashboard. This average zone at a store level heat map 600 may result from an analysis conducted to determine why an average zone is so high for some stores and not others. In view of Fig.6, the “average zone” is one of the values in a tile 610—it is the average number of shipment zones orders from that node must travel to reach the order destination—so for example from historical data it may be seen for the last 10k orders sourced to that node, 5k had to travel 4 zones to reach the destination from that node, and 5k had to travel 5 zones, the average zones would be 4.5 (the average number of shipment zones traveled by orders shipped from that node). For example, each of the tiles 610 represents a store and when selected by a user a label 625 is generated and displayed which indicates the particular store identifier (ID) 620 and an indication 630 of the average size of the volume of orders generated at that store. Additionally, the size of the tile 610 represents a number of orders or that store's volume of orders. A shade of the tile 610 also indicates the average zone, the darker the bigger. In one embodiment, an average zone value may range anywhere from between values of 2-6.5. This would mean on average orders sourced to/shipped from that node had to or would have to travel on average at least 2 shipment zones to reach their destination, or at most 6.5 shipment zones. Also Fig.8 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
584
774
media_image5.png
Greyscale
-> WO 2023101953 A1 teaching Monitoring packages in transit through a logistics network
-> Chen et al, A probabilistic framework for on-time crowdsourced package deliveries. IEEE transactions on big data, 8 no 3, p827-p842, Apr 29 2020
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Octavian Rotaru/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
October 17th, 2025
1 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
2 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
3 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
4 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
5 Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
6 OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
7 Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
8 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755
9 Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
10 Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
11 Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
12 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755
Prosecution Insights