DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 5/7/26, wherein:
Claims 1-25 are currently pending;
Claims 19-25 are withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 19-25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Independent claim 1 is directed to a system for calculating a carbon footprint for a product life cycle, including inputting information, calculating the carbon footprint, calculating a route distance between factories, and an AI component. Independent claim 10 is a method claim similar to claim 1. New, independent claim 19 is directed to calculating and optimizing a carbon footprint for a product life cycle, including constructing a logistic network as a plurality of layers, utilizing an assistant AI component, automatically filling historical data from a database, calculating a route distance, and optimizing the logistic network by minimizing an objective function balancing an accumulated carbon emission and a financial cost.
2. The inventions of claims 1-18 (Invention I) and claims 19-25 (Invention II) are directed to related inventions, that of a system for calculating a carbon footprint for a product life cycle and that of a method for calculating and optimizing a carbon footprint for a product life cycle. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function or effect and are not obvious variants. Specifically, Invention I, as a method directed to calculating a carbon footprint, is designed significantly differently from Invention II, which is directed to calculating and optimizing a carbon footprint for a product life cycle. The method and system claims are not similar and do not overlap in scope. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
For example, original claim 1 is directed to:
A system to calculate a carbon footprint for a product life cycle, comprising:
a user interface for a user to input information;
a calculation module to calculate and optimize the carbon footprint for an input network;
a distance estimate interface for calculating a route distance between factories; and
an assistant Al component for an intelligent guide to the user inputting and caching data.
Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 1.
While new claim 19 is directed to:
A computer-implemented method for calculating and optimizing a carbon footprint for a product life cycle, the method comprising:
constructing a logistic network as a plurality of layers comprising a source layer representing materials with a given emission factor, one or more intermediate layers representing different locations of factories, and an output layer representing outputs produced by the factories;
utilizing an assistant Al component to guide a user to input information, wherein the assistant Al component provides recommendations on accounting methods based on user data availability to compensate for insufficient knowledge in carbon accounting;
automatically filling historical data including a factory node and a corresponding local carbon footprint (Li+1,k) from a cache database connected to the assistant Al component;
calculating a route distance (di,j,k) and a corresponding carbon footprint of transportation between factory nodes using a distance estimate interface; propagating accumulated carbon footprint values (Gi,j) through the plurality of layers of the logistic network using a programmed weight (wi,j,k) for each factory connection, wherein the programmed weight represents a percentage of an output produced at a layer to be divided and sent to a next layer; and
optimizing the logistic network by minimizing an objective function balancing an accumulated carbon emission (GI) at the output layer and a total financial cost (C) using a cost-to-carbon-emission coefficient (λ) measuring a priority of financial cost over carbon emission.
Reviewing the independent claims reveals a complete lack of overlap in scope.
3. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims19-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, Alice
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claim 10 recites a method, and therefore, also falls into a statutory category. Despite the analysis that claim 1 was not found to fall into a statutory category the claims are reanalyzed under the full 2-step process for purposes of compact prosecution.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered mental processes
a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to calculate a carbon footprint for a product life cycle representing the flow of materials through a logistic network, comprising:
a user interface for a user to input information;
a calculation module configured to calculate and optimize the carbon footprint for the logistic network based in part on the information;
a distance estimate interface for calculating a route distance between factories; and
an assistant Al component for providing an intelligent guide to the user inputting the information and caching data,
wherein the logistic network is constructed as a plurality of layers including a source layer, one or more intermediate layers representing different locations of factories, and an output layer, and in that the calculation module is configured to propagate accumulated carbon footprint values through the plurality of layers using a programmed weight for each factory connection.
These limitations constitute calculating a carbon footprint for a product life cycle (Specification ¶7), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting that the claim includes a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, a user interface, a calculation module, a distance estimate interface, and an assistant AI component (claim 1), or a user interface, a calculation module, a processor, a distance estimate interface, a memory, and an assistant AI component (claim 10) nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, the following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered mathematical concepts
a calculation module configured to calculate and optimize the carbon footprint for the logistic network based in part on the information;
a distance estimate interface for calculating a route distance between factories; and
wherein . . . the calculation module is configured to propagate accumulated carbon footprint values through the plurality of layers using a programmed weight for each factory connection.
These limitations constitute calculating and optimizing a carbon footprint and calculating a route distance, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered mathematical concepts, in the form of a mathematical relationship, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols. See MPEP 2106.04(a). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, a user interface, a calculation module, a distance estimate interface, and an assistant AI component (claim 1), or a user interface, a calculation module, a processor, a distance estimate interface, a memory, and an assistant AI component (claim 10) all of which are considered computer components. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the input limitation may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the input limitation) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-17 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 or claim 10 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1 or claim 10; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 9 and 18 further recite the additional element of a programmed logic, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed applicant’s disclosure and submits that these added limitations find no support in the specification as currently written, and is, therefore, directed to new matter.
Claim 1: “propagate accumulated carbon footprint values through the plurality of layers using a programmed weight for each factory connection” is not described in the specification as written. Applicant did not cite any specific portion of the specification for support. However, Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, and did not find the cited limitation. Claim 10 includes similar language and is rejected for similar reasons.
The claims not specifically enumerated above are rejected as dependent upon one or more of the enumerated claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states that it is directed to a “system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to calculate a carbon footprint for a product life cycle representing the flow of materials through a logistic network, comprising: a user interface . . . a calculation module. . . “ which is confusing. In other words, the claim indicates that system is comprised of a processor and a computer-readable medium which executes instructions to perform a calculation, which calculation is comprised of a user interface, etc. It is not clear how the calculation can be comprised of a user interface, etc. Amendment of the claims is required.
Notice
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothley et al. (US 20130311215), in view of Lu et al. (US 20240143800), and further in view of Khoury (US 20230015284), and further in view of Zhaolei Li, Kun Liu, Gaojie Wang, et al. "Structure and toughness optimization of multi-layer weighted regional logistics network: taking the central region of China as an example", Proc. SPIE 12460, International Conference on Smart Transportation and City Engineering (STCE 2022), 124602F (22 Dec 2022) (hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Referring to claim 1:
Rothley discloses a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to calculate a carbon footprint for a product life cycle representing the flow of materials through a logistic network, comprising: a user interface for a user to input information {Rothley [0030][0073]; additional criteria can be input by a user [0030] and an input device 830 to provide a user or another device with means for entering data [0073]};
a calculation module configured to calculate and optimize the carbon footprint for the logistic network based in part on the information {Rothley [0030][0040][0066]; the mode of transportation can be classified using a standardized reference value which can be used to calculate the green transportation score for each mode of transportation, e.g., energy consumed per distance traveled and weight of the freight [0040] and The computer 610 can be configured to periodically analyze the data stored in the storage device 630 to optimize the distribution processes regarding the green features [0066]};
a distance estimate interface for calculating a route distance between factories {Rothley [0019][0056][0062][0070]; The alternative options regarding the transporting of the product may include the alternative distances that can be traveled by a particular mode of transportation or the distance of a particular route, or the alternative modes of transportation [0019] and analyze the distances between the freight forwarders [0056] and The system 600 may include a route planner to calculate and show the distance between the customer, freight forwarders and the storage locations [0070]},
Rothley discloses a system for analyzing distribution options of a product. Rothley does not disclose an assistant Al component for an intelligent guide to the user inputting data.
However, Lu discloses a related system for storing data (abstract). Lu discloses an assistant Al component for providing an intelligent guide to the user inputting the information [and caching data] {Lu [0105][0106][0122]; The platform can help understand which data-sharing agreements and services are likely to result in these advertisements and help the consumer change policies and agreements to prevent such advertising [0105] and what impact on an annual carbon footprint the product may have [0106] and AI can evaluate the utility of data and determine likely desirable data based on observations over a large set about what data entity's seem to utilize and request [0122]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Rothley to incorporate an AI for guiding user input as taught by Lu because this would provide a manner for determining likely desirable data (Lu [0122]), thus aiding the user by identifying desirable data for input.
Rothley, as modified by Lu, discloses a system for analyzing distribution options of a product. Rothley, as modified by Lu, does not disclose caching data.
However, Khoury discloses a similar system for comparison of carbon footprints (abstract). Khoury discloses caching data {Khoury [0192]; memory subsystem 412 includes a memory hierarchy that comprises one or more caches [0192]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Rothley and Lu to incorporate caching data as taught by Khoury because this would provide a manner for storing data (Khoury [0192]), thus aiding the user by making data available when needed.
Rothley, as modified by Lu and Khoury, discloses a system for analyzing distribution options of a product, including calculating the carbon emission (Rothley [0068]). Rothley, as modified by Lu and Khoury, do not disclose wherein the logistic network is constructed as a plurality of layers including a source layer, one or more intermediate layers representing different locations of factories, and an output layer, and in that the calculation module is configured to propagate accumulated carbon footprint values through the plurality of layers using a programmed weight for each factory connection.
However, Li discloses a similar system for logistics network (Li abstract). Li discloses wherein the logistic network is constructed as a plurality of layers including a source layer, one or more intermediate layers representing different locations of factories, and an output layer, and in that the calculation module is configured to propagate accumulated carbon footprint values through the plurality of layers using a programmed weight for each factory connection {Li 3-6 and Fig. 3; where Fig. 3 shows a multi-layer weighted region logistics network and where the names of the layers are simply descriptive and therefore, receive little patentable weight}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for calculating carbon emissions disclosed in Rothley, Lu, and Khoury to incorporate a logistics network as taught by Li because this would provide a manner for improving the toughness of the regional logistics network through optimization model simulation (Li 3), thus aiding the user by determining carbon emissions using a logistics network.
Referring to claim 2:
Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, discloses wherein said calculation module is based on a calculation method for a construction of a network propagation {Rothley [0019][0027][0040][0066][0070]; The system 600 may include a route planner to calculate and show the distance between the customer, freight forwarders and the storage locations [0070] where the customer, freight forwarders, and storage locations make up the network propagation}.
Referring to claim 3:
Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, discloses wherein said calculation module can perform a route optimization based on the carbon footprint and a financial cost constraint {Rothley [0020][0022][0040][0044][0045] [0066]; The improvement may include improving the image of the company, reducing the carbon footprint caused by the distribution of the product, reducing cost, or reducing delivery time [0022] and The computer 610 can be configured to periodically analyze the data stored in the storage device 630 to optimize the distribution processes regarding the green features [0066]}.
Referring to claim 4:
Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, discloses wherein said calculation module can be a further constraint to network node weights by a user input to fix logistic paths during operation {Rothley [0029]-[0037]; The criteria to be used in the method can be manually selected by a user [0030] and The weighting of the criteria may include assigning a weighting factor to each of the criteria [0034] and the values may be assigned with the goal of reducing or minimizing the transportation distance [0037] where minimizing the transportation distance fixes logistic paths}.
Referring to claim 5:
Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, discloses wherein said distance estimate interface performs multi-route finding, wherein routes comprise mixing classes of shipping and vehicle assets {Rothley [0025][0032][0036]; the freight forwarder may enter information such as the originating location, the mode of transportation, the distance to be traveled by each mode of transportation [0025] and The best mode of transportation criteria may include modes of transportation such as car, van, truck, train, ship or plane [0032] and Multiple distribution options may be provided for a given freight forwarder if the freight forwarder can deliver the product using different modes of transportation [0036]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, discloses finding a distance, time travel, and financial cost for each of the classes corresponding to each of the routes {Rothley [0019][0027][0029]-[0031]; The alternative options regarding the transporting of the product may include the alternative distances that can be traveled by a particular mode of transportation or the distance of a particular route, or the alternative modes of transportation. The analysis may also include the cost and/or time for the delivery associated with each of the alternatives considered in the analysis [0019]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, discloses wherein [said assistant Al component] comprises a memory database for automatically filling up of historical data, including a factory node and a corresponding local carbon footprint {Rothley [0024][0025][0061][0063]; The data may be obtained from a database storing the information relating to the product, the supplier, the distributor, the freight forwarder, or the customer [0024] where Rothley, as above, does not disclose the limitation in brackets, and this is addressed below}.
Lu discloses said assistant Al component {Lu [0105][0106][0122]; The platform can help understand which data-sharing agreements and services are likely to result in these advertisements and help the consumer change policies and agreements to prevent such advertising [0105] and what impact on an annual carbon footprint the product may have [0106] and AI can evaluate the utility of data and determine likely desirable data based on observations over a large set about what data entity's seem to utilize and request [0122]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, discloses wherein [said assistant Al component] performs an analysis of market information and reports to provide recommendations on different methods and parameters to the user {Rothley [0038]-[0040][0061][0062]; Using the results of the analysis, one of the distribution options may automatically be selected, a recommendation may be made to use one or more of the distribution options, or a user may be given an option to select one of the distribution options [0038] and the green distribution KPI can be calculated for each option using the transportation score, the packaging score, and amount of time in transit [0043] and The supply planner can be provided with the details of the report showing the KPI scores and/or a ranked list of the freight forwarders including one or more of the mode of transportation, the type of packaging that can be used, the distance, the cost, and the reduction of carbon footprint [0061] where Rothley, as above, does not disclose the limitation in brackets, and this is addressed below}.
Lu discloses said assistant Al component {Lu [0105][0106][0122]; The platform can help understand which data-sharing agreements and services are likely to result in these advertisements and help the consumer change policies and agreements to prevent such advertising [0105] and what impact on an annual carbon footprint the product may have [0106] and AI can evaluate the utility of data and determine likely desirable data based on observations over a large set about what data entity's seem to utilize and request [0122]}.
Referring to claim 10:
Claim 10 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Rothley discloses optimizing, by the processor, the carbon footprint based on a cost-to-carbon-emission coefficient that balances total financial cost with total carbon emission {Rothley [0034]-[0039]; weighting of the criteria may be performed. The weighting of the criteria may include assigning a weighting factor to each of the criteria. The weighting of the one or more criteria within a system may be configured to reflect an organization's internal values, priorities, and thresholds with respect to sustainability. Thus, more weight can be assigned to criteria that represent valued sustainability practices [0034]}.
Rothley, as modified by Lu and Khoury, discloses a system for analyzing distribution options of a product, including calculating the carbon emission (Rothley [0068]). Rothley, as modified by Lu and Khoury, do not disclose propagating, by the processor, accumulated carbon footprint values through the plurality of layers using a programmed weight for each factory connection, wherein the weights represent a percentage of material divided from a preceding layer factory to a succeeding layer factory.
However, Li discloses a similar system for logistics network (Li abstract). Li discloses propagating, by the processor, accumulated carbon footprint values through the plurality of layers using a programmed weight for each factory connection, wherein the weights represent a percentage of material divided from a preceding layer factory to a succeeding layer factory {Li 3-6 and Fig. 3; where Fig. 3 shows a multi-layer weighted region logistics network and where the names of the layers are simply descriptive and therefore, receive little patentable weight and what the weight represents is non-functional descriptive data and therefore, receives little patentable weight}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for calculating carbon emissions disclosed in Rothley, Lu, and Khoury to incorporate a logistics network as taught by Li because this would provide a manner for improving the toughness of the regional logistics network through optimization model simulation (Li 3), thus aiding the user by determining carbon emissions using a logistics network.
Referring to claims 11-17:
Claims 11-17 are rejected on a similar basis to claims 2-8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothley et al. (US 20130311215), in view of Lu et al. (US 20240143800), in view of Khoury (US 20230015284), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20200019580), and further in view of Li.
Referring to claim 9:
Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, discloses using a programmed logic to request the user for inputting necessary data [from most accurate to less accurate based on available data] from the user {Rothley [0030][0073]; additional criteria can be input by a user [0030] and an input device 830 to provide a user or another device with means for entering data [0073]}.
Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, discloses a system for analyzing distribution options of a product. Rothley, as modified by Lu, Khoury, and Li, does not disclose request for inputting necessary data from most accurate to less accurate based on available data.
However, Kim discloses a similar system for collecting information (abstract). Kim discloses request for inputting necessary data from most accurate to less accurate based on available data {Kim [0104]-[0107]; The GPS location information has the highest accuracy, and thus the location information of the first priority may have a low error [0104] and If the location information of the first priority matching the identifier of the second access point exists in the first database 421, the processor 410 may update the location information of the second priority matching the identifier of the first access point based on the location information of the first priority [0105] and In the above-described embodiments, high accuracy (or low error) is obtained in the order of the first priority, the second priority, and the third priority [0107]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Rothley, Lu, Khoury, and Li to incorporate requesting data in an order from most accurate to least accurate as taught by Kim because this would provide a manner for using the information with the highest accuracy (Kim [0104]), thus aiding the user by using the best data available.
Referring to claims 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the “amended claim defines a specific logistic network architecture” which “requires a technical analysis of material distribution that transcends the scope of routine mental processes.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of the logistic network is minimal as claimed and can easily be drawn out using pen and paper or visualized in the mind.
As to the mathematical concept, Applicant argues that the claims integrate the exception into a practical application and that by utilizing a cost-to-carbon-emission coefficient, the system provides a technical solution. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cost-to-carbon-emission coefficient merely provides additional mathematical concepts. There is no technical solution provided.
Applicant further argues that the assistant AI, combined with the cache database, represents an unconventional technical approach and when considered as a whole, provides a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no improvement to technology recited and no evidence of an unconventional technical approach.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Examiner has altered the rejection in response to the amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the amended limitations. An updated rejection with new art has been provided.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights