DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the arguments/remarks filed on 30 April 2024.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 12-17 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 18-20 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-11 and 18-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
storing node information for a plurality of nodes of a supply chain graph, the supply chain graph being a directed graph where each of the nodes represent a location or transport in a supply chain and edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node, each edge being stored as a record that identifies the node that transferred items were transferred from and the node that the transferred items were transferred to;
receiving first product tracking information for a first product unit, the first product tracking information including a first tracking code associated with the first product unit and indicating a first node for the first product unit;
receiving second product tracking information, the second product tracking information indicating that the product unit has been aggregated with other product units to form a first aggregation at a second node of the plurality of nodes and including a second tracking code associated with the first aggregation; and
in response to receiving the second product tracking information, automatically storing a first record indicating a transfer of the first product unit from the first node to the second node, the first record corresponding to a first edge of the supply chain graph and including the at least the second tracking code.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to tracking a product in a supply chain. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior of tracking a product which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a processor, memory in communication with the processor, the memory comprising executable instructions that, when executed by the processor alone or in combination with other processors, cause the supply chain tracking system to perform functions, a database using a tracking management component of the supply chain tracking system, a tracking application of a first client device, a network, and a second client device. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does 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(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, and 10 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, and 10 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4, 9, and 11 further recite(s) the additional element(s): a code reader of a client device (claim 4) and a display device (claim 9 and 11). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 4, 9, and 11 is/are ineligible.
Claim 18 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 18 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 18 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer readable medium on which are stored instructions, a programmable device, a database using a tracking management component of the supply chain tracking system, a tracking application of a first client device, a network, and a second client device. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 19-20 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 18. Therefor claim(s) 19-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolene (US 9576264 B2) in view of Phaniraj (US 20210287149 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bolene teaches a supply chain tracking system comprising:
a processor; (Col. 2, ll. 45 “processor 112”) and
a memory in communication with the processor, the memory comprising executable instructions that, when executed by the processor alone or in combination with other processors, (Col. 2, ll. 41-46 “he memory 114 […] storing computer-readable instructions stored thereon that can be executed by the processor 112 to perform the methods of the present disclosure.”) cause the supply chain tracking system to perform functions of:
storing node information for a plurality of nodes of a supply chain graph in a database using a tracking management component of the supply chain tracking system, (Col. 5, ll. 8-10 “The relationship between sellable units and their various aggregations can be stored in the external data repository.”; Col. 7, ll. 7-8 “FIG. 2 depicts different partners in an exemplary supply chain (manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacies, etc.)”; Fig. 2)
receiving first product tracking information for a first product unit transmitted from a tracking application of a first client device at the tracking management component via a network, the first product tracking information including a first tracking code associated with the first product unit and indicating a first node for the first product unit; (Col. 3, ll. 20-47 “The EPC may be attached to the product's packaging, […] a device 130 that includes a handheld scanner (e.g., a barcode scanner and/or RFID reader) for reading such information and communicating it to the computer system 110, database 140, or other system. Such scanners may communicate with the computer system 110 or other device through […] a computer network connection”; Col. 5, ll. 43-51 “Commissioning events can be published to the external data repository, with each event containing an identifier (such as a serial number) for the commissioned item or container. The commissioning event may include […] a business location (GLN)”; Fig. 1; Fig. 17 shows the pharmacy receiving commissioning tracking information including a first tracking code (i.e., the first SGTIN product number) and the location (i.e., the commissioning SGLN number))
receiving second product tracking information transmitted from the tracking application of the first client device or a second client device at the tracking management component via the network, the second product tracking information indicating that the first product unit has been aggregated with other product units to form a first aggregation at a second node of the plurality of nodes and including a second tracking code associated with the first aggregation; (Col. 3, ll. 20-47 “The EPC may be attached to the product's packaging, […] a device 130 that includes a handheld scanner (e.g., a barcode scanner and/or RFID reader) for reading such information and communicating it to the computer system 110, database 140, or other system. Such scanners may communicate with the computer system 110 or other device through […] a computer network connection”; Col. 6, ll. 32-36 “’…aggregation events’ that describe relationships between items having EPCs. For example, an aggregation event may include adding six bottles of aspirin (each with its own EPC) into a shipping container (also with its own EPC)”; Fig. 17 shows the pharmacy receiving tracking information showing an aggregated container (i.e. SSCC number in the receiving section) being received at a second node (i.e. new SGLN number in the receiving section). The aggregation event showing a second tracking code (i.e., parent product number in the aggregation section) and a list of child tracking codes (i.e., child product numbers in the aggregation section). One of the child codes is the first (SGTIN number from the commissioning section).) and
in response to receiving the second product tracking information, automatically storing a first record in the database indicating a transfer of the first product unit from the first node to the second node using the tracking management component, the first record(Col. 3, ll. 20-47 “The EPC [electronic product code] may be attached to the product's packaging, […] a device 130 that includes a handheld scanner (e.g., a barcode scanner and/or RFID reader) for reading such information and communicating it to the computer system 110, database 140, or other system.”; Col. 17, ll. 13-18 “If a shipping event matches a receiving event, then create an EventLink for them. A match occurs in response to the events referencing the same EPC, the shipping event's shipTo identifier is owned by the same organization as the receiving event's bizLocation identifier”; Fig. 17 shows a receiving event, where the SGLN (location code) of the receiving event is different than the SGLN (location code) of the shipping event. Fig. 17 also shows the first tracking code and second tracking code explained above)
Bolene does not teach:
the supply chain graph being a directed graph where each of the nodes represent a location or transport in a supply chain and edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node, each edge being stored as a record in the database that identifies the node that transferred items were transferred from and the node that the transferred items were transferred to;
storing a first record in the database indicating a transfer of the first product unit from the first stage associated with the first node to the second stage associated with the second node, the first record corresponding to a first edge of the supply chain graph.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
the supply chain graph being a directed graph where each of the nodes represent a location or transport in a supply chain and edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node, each edge being stored as a record in the database that identifies the node that transferred items were transferred from and the node that the transferred items were transferred to; (Paragraph [0043] “Determination of the flow path can be performed by the client device, server (e.g., central system 102)”; Paragraph [0044] “The flow map 318 includes an upstream segment that indicates that the Chicago facility is supplied ‘Widget XY’ from an upstream facility in Europe. Flow map 318 further includes a first-order downstream segment indicating that the Chicago facility supplies ‘Widget XY’ to a downstream facility in Columbia, Missouri, and a second-order downstream segment indicating that the Columbia facility supplies ‘Widget XY’ to a downstream facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Each of these facilities in the flow path is represented on the map by visual markers 320a-d overlaid at locations on the map that correspond to their geographic locations in the real world. Arrows showing the direction of flow of the item connect the facilities on flow map 318.”; Paragraph [0029] “The central system 102 manages records for each facility item in the supply chain. For instance, as further shown in table 106, central system 102 maintains metadata for each facility item such as values of one or more supply chain metrics, e.g., actual inventory levels, OTIF, […] delivery projections,”; el. 318 of Fig. 3D; Examiner notes a record would comprises all data in el. 106 of Fig. 1 that relates to Item ID #A. Therefore, el. 106 of Fig. 1 identifies the movement of item A from facility 1 to facility 2.)
storing a first record in the database indicating a transfer of the first product unit from the first stage associated with the first node to the second stage associated with the second node, the first record corresponding to a first edge of the supply chain graph. (Paragraph [0029] “As shown in table 106, data processing and aggregation data processing and aggregation 108 may consolidate information received from individual facilities into a merged data set that includes records for each “facility item” in the supply chain.”; Paragraph [0044] “Arrows showing the direction of flow of the item connect the facilities on the map 318”; el. 106 of Fig. 1, and el. 318 of Fig. 3D)
This operation of Phaniraj is applicable to the system of Bolene as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking items in a supply chain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the supply chain graph of Bolene to have the nodes and edges as taught by Phaniraj. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bolene in order to allow users to quickly and efficiently access relevant data to gather desired insights (see paragraph [0001] of Phaniraj).
Regarding claim 2, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1,
Bolene further teaches wherein the functions further comprise:
receiving third product tracking information via the network, the third product tracking information indicating that a plurality of aggregations of product units have been aggregated to form a second aggregation at a third node of the plurality of nodes and including a third tracking code associated with the second aggregation; (Col. 19, ll. 59-60 “a data repository server may be configured to push recall events to parties in the supply chain”; Col. 6, ll. 32-36 “’…aggregation events’ that describe relationships between items having EPCs. For example, an aggregation event may include adding six bottles of aspirin (each with its own EPC) into a shipping container (also with its own EPC)”; Col. 5, ll. 4-6 “Various embodiments can track products at any level of aggregation (including products packaged inside multiple levels of nested containers)”) and
storing a second record in the database indicating a transfer of the first product unit from the second node to the third node (Col. 17, ll. 13-18 “If a shipping event matches a receiving event, then create an EventLink for them. A match occurs in response to the events referencing the same EPC, the shipping event's shipTo identifier is owned by the same organization as the receiving event's bizLocation identifier”; Col. 6, ll. 32-36 “’…aggregation events’ that describe relationships between items having EPCs. For example, an aggregation event may include adding six bottles of aspirin (each with its own EPC) into a shipping container (also with its own EPC)”; Col. 5, ll. 4-6 “Various embodiments can track products at any level of aggregation (including products packaged inside multiple levels of nested containers)”Fig. 16 and 17 show a second set of shipping (second shipping event in fig. 17) and receiving events (Fig. 16) representing the transfer of the item from the distributor (SGLN 0222333… in Fig. 17) to the retailer (SGLN 0111222… in Fig. 16).)
Bolene does not teach:
storing a second record in the database indicating a transfer of the first product unit from the second node to the third node, the second record corresponding to a second edge in the supply chain graph.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
storing a second record in the database indicating a transfer of the first product unit from the e second node to the third node, the second record corresponding to a second edge in the supply chain graph. (Paragraph [0029] “As shown in table 106, data processing and aggregation data processing and aggregation 108 may consolidate information received from individual facilities into a merged data set that includes records for each “facility item” in the supply chain.”; Paragraph [0044] “Arrows showing the direction of flow of the item connect the facilities on the map 318”; el. 106 of Fig. 1, and el. 318 of Fig. 3D)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1.
Bolene further teaches wherein the functions further comprise:
receiving third product tracking information via the network, the third product tracking information indicating that the first product unit has been disaggregated from the first aggregation at a third node of the plurality of nodes; (Col. 19, ll. 59-60 “a data repository server may be configured to push recall events to parties in the supply chain”; Col. 6, ll. 62-67 “A ‘disaggregation event’ may include removing some of the items (e.g., bottles of aspirin) from a container.”; Fig. 16 shows that the disaggregation happens at the pharmacy/retailer (SGLN 0333444 of Fig. 16) and not the Manufacturer or distributor) and
storing a second record in the database indicating a transfer of the first product unit from the second node to the third node, the second record including the first tracking code. (Col. 17, ll. 13-18 “If a shipping event matches a receiving event, then create an EventLink for them. A match occurs in response to the events referencing the same EPC, the shipping event's shipTo identifier is owned by the same organization as the receiving event's bizLocation identifier”; Fig. 16 and 17 show a second set of shipping (second shipping event in fig. 17) and receiving events (Fig. 16) representing the transfer of the item from the distributor (SGLN 0222333… in Fig. 17) to the retailer (SGLN 0111222… in Fig. 16). The first tracking code is visible in Fig. 16 in the disaggregation event (SGTIN 0111222.999888.411))
Regarding claim 4, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1.
Bolene further teaches:
the first tracking code is included with the first product unit, (Col. 3, ll. 27-29 “The EPC may be attached to the product's packaging, and/or associated with a product in any other desired manner”) and
the first product tracking information is generated by scanning the first tracking code with a code reader of a client device. (Col. 3, ll. 30-33 “a device 130 that includes a handheld scanner (e.g., a barcode scanner and/or RFID reader) for reading such information [EPC code] and communicating it to the computer system 110, database 140, or other system”)
Regarding claim 5, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1.
Bolene further teaches:
the first aggregation corresponds to a pallet, (Col. 6, ll. 51-53 “Various embodiments can track products at various possible levels of aggregation including: […] pallet”) and
the second tracking code is a code for the pallet. (Col. 3, ll. 21-24 “The EPC can be any code, symbol, picture and/or any other unique identifier assigned to each […] subset of items in the chain.”; Col. 6, ll. 51-53 “Various embodiments can track products at various possible levels of aggregation including: […] pallet”)
Regarding claim 6, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1.
Bolene further teaches:
the first node corresponds to a source node for the first product unit, (Col. 5, ll. 32-34 “For example, a manufacturer trading partner in a supply chain may generate and/or publish “commissioning” events as an initiating event for a sellable item”; Fig. 17 shows that the commissioning event happens at the manufacturer. (SGLN code is for the manufacturer)) and
the node information includes source information for the source node, the source information indicating at least one quality metric for the first product unit. (Col. 9, lines 7-9 “If there is more than one commissioning event, the system sets the child EPC state to a condition reflecting error”)
Regarding claim 7, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1.
Bolene further teaches:
wherein the first aggregation is a volume of a bulk commodity. (Col. 6, ll. 32-39 “an aggregation event may include adding six bottles of aspirin”)
Regarding claim 8, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1,
Bolene does not teach:
wherein the supply chain graph is generated utilizing group-by aggregation queries on records in the database.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
wherein the supply chain graph is generated utilizing group-by aggregation queries on records in the database. (Paragraph [0029] “individual client computing systems 116a-n and users of the client computing systems 116a-n may request aggregation of metadata for additional groups of facility items”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 2.
Bolene does not teach:
generating a visualization of the supply chain graph based on the plurality of nodes and at least the first edge and the second edge, and
displaying the visualization of the supply chain graph on a display device.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
generating a visualization of the supply chain graph based on the plurality of nodes and at least the first edge and a second edge, (Paragraph [0044] “Each of these facilities in the flow path is represented on the map by visual markers 320a-d overlaid at locations on the map that correspond to their geographic locations in the real world. Arrows showing the direction of flow of the item connect the facilities on the map 318.”) and
displaying the visualization of the supply chain graph on a display device. (Paragraph [0043] “a product flow view for the selected facility item is rendered for display to the end user (210).”; “step 210” of Fig. 2)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 9.
Bolene does not teaches wherein a visualization includes:
a map of a geographic region associated with the plurality of nodes of the supply chain, pin icons pointing to locations on the map where the plurality of nodes of the supply chain are physically located.
However, Phaniraj teaches wherein a visualization includes:
a map of a geographic region associated with the plurality of nodes of the supply chain, pin icons pointing to locations on the map where the plurality of nodes of the supply chain are physically located. (Paragraph [0044] “Each of these facilities in the flow path is represented on the map by visual markers 320a-d overlaid at locations on the map that correspond to their geographic locations in the real world.”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 10.
Bolene does not teach:
wherein user interaction with a pin icon causes information to be displayed on a display screen pertaining to the location pointed to by the pin icon.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
wherein user interaction with a pin icon causes information to be displayed on a display screen pertaining to a location pointed to by the pin icon. (Paragraph [0044] “When the user hovers a pointer over and/or clicks on a visual marker for a particular facility on the flow map 318 to select that marker, focus can be automatically applied to the facility (and facility item) represented by the marker, a pop-up window can be displayed at or near the marker showing certain details about the facility or facility item represented by the marker, and/or the trends view can be rendered for the facility item represented by the marker.”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim(s) 18-20 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1-3, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1-3, respectively. Claims 18-20 further recite “a non-transitory computer readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed cause a programmable device to perform functions” (see Col. 2, ll. 41-50 “non-transitory computer-readable medium” of Bolene).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 10, filed 30 April 2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments of claims 1, 9-11, and 18. The claims objections of claims 1, 9-11, and 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 11-14, filed 30 April 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1) the claims do not recite an abstract idea and 2) the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the Applicant argues the amendments to claim 1 and claim 18 make the claims no longer recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims now recite “a tracking management component of a supply chain tracking system”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0001] of the instant specification explains the invention solves “the need to track raw materials through multiple stages of processing that involve aggregation and disaggregation”. Tracking raw materials through stages is a method of organizing human activity under the subcategory of managing personal interactions between people because the materials are being tracked as they transfer from one entity to another (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The tracking management component of the supply chain tracking system is not part of the abstract idea. USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. The additional elements are analyzed in step 2A prong 2 and step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test for eligibility, but the addition of high level additional elements on their own does not make an invention directed towards non-abstract material.
Regarding argument 2, the Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims reflect technical improvements to supply chain tracking. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements performing the improvement are recited at a high level. For example, Paragraph [0052] of the instant specification recites:
The machine 1000 may include processors 1010, memory 1030, and I/O components 1050, which may be communicatively coupled via, for example, a bus 1002. The bus 1002 may include multiple buses coupling various elements of machine 1000 via various bus technologies and protocols. In an example, the processors 1010 (including, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), an ASIC, or a suitable combination thereof) may include one or more processors 1012a to 1012n that may execute the instructions 1016 and process data. In some examples, one or more processors 1010 may execute instructions provided or identified by one or more other processors 1010. The term “processor” includes a multi-core processor including cores that may execute instructions contemporaneously. Although FIG. 10 shows multiple processors, the machine 1000 may include a single processor with a single core, a single processor with multiple cores (for example, a multi-core processor), multiple processors each with a single core, multiple processors each with multiple cores, or any combination thereof. In some examples, the machine 1000 may include multiple processors distributed among multiple machines.
The machine/processor described in paragraph [0052] of the instant specification is a generic computer being described at a high level performing an abstract idea. The steps that supply chain tracking system is performing is recited at a high level (i.e., storing node information, receiving first product tracking information, receiving second product tracking information, and storing a first record). MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As claimed, the storing…, receiving…, receiving…, and storing… steps would be performed in the same way by the tracking management component as a human. For example, a human could store node information and receive product tracking information. By having a computer perform steps in a way that a human would, the Applicant is claiming the improved speed of efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the additional elements are just being applied to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since the claimed invention does not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. Therefore the invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem and the Examiner maintains the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 15-17, filed 30 April 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited prior art does not teach the amended “storing node information…” limitation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner is relying on Bolene to teach storing node information for a plurality of nodes of a supply chain graph in a database using a tracking management component of the supply chain tracking system. The Applicant agrees on Page 15 of the remarks that Bolene does disclose the chain of custody information is collected for the products and stored in an external data repository which enables products to be traced even when aggregated into and disaggregated from containers. Therefore, Bolene does teach storing node information for a plurality of nodes of a supply chain graph in a database, where each of the nodes represents a location or transport in the supply chain. However, the Examiner relies on Phaniraj, not Bolene to teach the rest of the limitation as amended. Paragraph [0044] of Phaniraj recites:
FIGS. 3C-3D depict screenshots of product flow views 300c and 300d for a selected facility item. These figures illustrate the rendering of an example flow path on a map consistent with operation 210 from FIG. 2. Product flow view 300c maintains header display region 302 and overview display region 310 from trends view 300b. However, the content of region 312 has changed from providing a trends plot 316 to providing a product flow map 318 for the facility item that was initially selected by the user (or that otherwise has current focus). In this example, a facility in Chicago, Ill. has current focus since the selected facility item relates to that facility's processing of ‘Widget XY.’ The flow map 318 includes an upstream segment that indicates the Chicago facility is supplied ‘Widget XY’ from an upstream facility in Europe. Flow map 318 further includes a first-order downstream segment indicating that the Chicago facility supplies ‘Widget XY’ to a downstream facility in Columbia, Mo., and a second-order downstream segment indicating that the Columbia facility supplies ‘Widget XY’ to a downstream facility in Minneapolis, Minn. Each of these facilities in the flow path is represented on the map by visual markers 320a-d overlaid at locations on the map that correspond to their geographic locations in the real world. Arrows showing the direction of flow of the item connect the facilities on the map 318. In some implementations, the facility item that has current focus can be visually emphasized relative to other facilities that do not have focus. For example, visual marker 320b for the Chicago facility is represented in a different color than the other markers 320a, 320c-d in FIG. 3C. This visual emphasis can change to a different marker if a user selects to apply focus to a downstream or upstream facility. The visual markers 320a-d can take a variety of forms such as pins, icons, graphics, text, or a combination of these. In some implementations, a user can interact with visual markers 320a-d. When the user hovers a pointer over and/or clicks on a visual marker for a particular facility on the flow map 318 to select that marker, focus can be automatically applied to the facility (and facility item) represented by the marker, a pop-up window can be displayed at or near the marker showing certain details about the facility or facility item represented by the marker, and/or the trends view can be rendered for the facility item represented by the marker. In some implementations, the user can pan the map 318 to view different geographic areas within the bounds of the viewport. The user may also interact with zoom control 322 to zoom into our out of the map 318 to a desired zoom level. For instance, view 300c shows a relatively zoomed-out view spanning much of North America and Europe. In contrast, view 300d shows the map 318 at a closer zoom level that isolates as a portion of the United States where three of the facility markers 320b-d are located. Both views 300c and 300d maintain buttons 314a-g within display region 312 to allow users to efficiently transition between display modes and quickly access information regarding upstream or downstream facility items.
Figure 3D and Paragraph [0044] of Phaniraj shows a directed graph representing the movement of a product to various facilities (i.e. nodes/locations) around the United States. This is a directed graph because the lines between the facilities (i.e. the edges) have arrows showing the direction of the flow. Therefore, Fig. 3D of Phaniraj shows the supply chain graph being a directed graph where each of the nodes represent a location or transport in a supply chain and edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node. Paragraph [0043] of Phaniraj explains that this flow path is determined by the central system 102. Paragraph [0029] of Phaniraj recites:
As shown in table 106, data processing and aggregation data processing and aggregation 108 may consolidate information received from individual facilities into a merged data set that includes records for each “facility item” in the supply chain. A facility item is an object that represents a particular facility's processing of a particular item in a supply chain. The same item processed by two different facilities (e.g., item A and facilities 1 and 2) can be represented as two different facility items, for example. The central system 102 manages records for each facility item in the supply chain. For instance, as further shown in table 106, central system 102 maintains metadata for each facility item such as values of one or more supply chain metrics, e.g., actual inventory levels, OTIF, backorder amounts, target inventory levels, sales amounts, delivery projections, demand forecasts, etc. Data processing and aggregation data processing and aggregation 108 may also be configured to automatically pre-aggregate metadata (e.g., values of supply chain metrics) for groups of two or more facility items. For example, data processing and aggregation 108 may aggregate the metadata associated with all or a subset of items processed by an individual facility to derive facility-wide metrics. Additionally, data processing and aggregation 108 may aggregate the metadata associated with all or a subset of facilities that process a particular item or a particular group of items to derive overall item metrics for individual items or groups of items across facilities. In some implementations, data processing and aggregation 108 is programmed to automatically compute aggregated metrics on a regular or scheduled basis for a set of most popular groups of facility items that are frequently accessed by client computing systems 116a-n. Additionally, individual client computing systems 116a-n and users of the client computing systems 116a-n may request aggregation of metadata for additional groups of facility items on either a one-time or recurring (e.g., regular/periodic/scheduled) basis. Actionable data that is made accessible to client computing systems 116a-n, including re-formatted, merged, and aggregated data, can be stored in volatile and/or non-volatile memory in one or more data structures (e.g., databases) of a data repository 104. Central system 102 may expose an application programming interface (API) to client computing systems 116a-n allowing client computing systems 116a-n to access data from repository 104 as needed.
Paragraph [0029] of Phaniraj explains the central system 102, which creates the flow path seen in Fig. 3D, gets information from consolidated records containing information about where items have been and when. As claimed, the “records” are described as a high level, and in the context of Phaniraj is being interpreted as all information regarding a particular item (i.e. item A) in table 106. The central system 102 is able to gather the record regarding item A, and is able to generate a flow path showing the movement of item A between various facilities. Therefore, Phaniraj teaches the supply chain graph being a directed graph where each of the nodes represent a location or transport in a supply chain and edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node, each edge being stored as a record in the database that identifies the node that transferred items were transferred from and the node that the transferred items were transferred to. Proper motivation was provided in the above office action. Therefore, the Examiner maintains Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the amended claim 1 and 18.
With regards to claims 2-11 and 19-20, the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence on claims 1 and 18, respectively. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1 and 18. Therefore, claims 2-11 and 19-20 remain rejected.
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 DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628