DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 1/26/24, wherein:
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, Software Per Se
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In claims 1-9, the system contains software (data) structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media and therefore are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing function change in a computer. Claim 1 references a ”user interface,” “a calculation module,” “a distance estimate interface,” and “an assistant AI component.” None of these are further defined in the Specification. Therefore, they may only be interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. In the computer arts, interfaces and modules are commonly understood to refer to software. A component is a part of a whole. It also does not require hardware, but may refer only to software. Until it is expressed as a computer-readable "copy," e.g., on a CD-ROM, any software detached from an activating medium remains uncombinable. It cannot be inserted into a CD-ROM drive or downloaded from the Internet; it cannot be installed or executed on a computer. Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment. Microsoft v AT&T, 550 US 437, (2007).
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 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.
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 steps are performed by a user interface, a calculation module, a distance estimate interface, and an assistant AI component, 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 to calculate and optimize the carbon footprint for an input network; and
a distance estimate interface for calculating a route distance between factories.
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 user interface, a calculation module, a distance estimate interface, and an assistant AI component, 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(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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 states, “a calculation module to calculate and optimize the carbon footprint for an input network.” The term “input network” is unclear. The Specification does not define this term or otherwise make the meaning of the term clear. A network may refer to a group of interconnected things, such as the factories required to make the product. Or, a network may refer to a complex system of roads, railroads, or other transportation routes. Or, a network may refer to a computer network. As best understood in light of the Specification, the meaning here is a group of interconnected things, such as the factories required to make the product; as such this is how the claims will be interpreted for further examination. Claim 10 has a similar limitation and is rejected for similar reasons. The remaining claims are rejected as dependent on claim 1 or claim 10.
Claim 6 states, “finding a distance, time travel, and financial cost for each vehicle mode corresponding to each of the routes” which is confusing, as vehicle modes are not previously mentioned in the claims. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons.
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).
Referring to claim 1:
Rothley discloses a system to calculate a carbon footprint for a product life cycle, 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 to calculate and optimize the carbon footprint for an input network {Rothley [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 an intelligent guide to the user inputting 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.
Referring to claim 2:
Rothley, as modified by Lu and Khoury, 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 and Khoury, 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 and Khoury, 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 and Khoury, 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 and Khoury, discloses finding a distance, time travel, and financial cost for each vehicle mode 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] and where the Specification at [0024] indicates that a “mode” is equivalent to a class of transit, such as land, air, or sea}.
Referring to claim 7:
Rothley, as modified by Lu and Khoury, 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 and Khoury, 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 claims 10-17:
Claims 10-17 are rejected on a similar basis to claims 1-8.
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).
Referring to claim 9:
Rothley, as modified by Lu and Khoury, 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 and Khoury, discloses a system for analyzing distribution options of a product. Rothley, as modified by Lu and Khoury, 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, and Khoury 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.
Conclusion
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