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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-13.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 04/23/2024 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 01/13/2026, Amending Claims 1-13.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the new claims.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103- Applicant’s arguments, see pages 24-30, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 102/103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims,
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 19-20 of the remarks): with regard to Step 2A, Prong One
Even if Applicant's independent claims 1, 12, and 13 do include an abstract
idea (a point that Applicant does not concede), Applicant's claims 1, 12, and 13,
when considered as a whole, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical
application at least because claims 1, 12, and 13 recite elements that improve the
production of items by reducing the amount of electric power required to produce a
product. As discussed in the MPEP, "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not
directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating
that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One
way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves
the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical
field." See MPEP at 2106.04(d)(1) (emphasis added).
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Applicant's Specification titled "RESOURCE USAGE AMOUNT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND RESOURCE USAGE AMOUNT MANAGEMENT METHOD
" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for providing usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated electric power usage amount" (Spec. [0001]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 12-13 recites the abstract idea.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 12-13 are directed to the abstract idea of calculating the electric power usage amount to provide the usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated resource usage amount. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of calculating/determining the electric power usage amount to provide the usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated electric power usage amount. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and because the independent claims 1, and 12-13 recites the abstract idea of calculating/determining the resource usage amount to provide the usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated resource usage amount. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation system, storage, a processor, a computer and A non-transitory recording medium a computer program are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The use of generic computer component does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Applicant argues (Pages 22-23 of the remarks): with regard to 2B
Even assuming, arguendo, that Applicant's independent claims 1, 12, and 13
are directed to the alleged abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede),
Applicant's claims recite meaningful unconventional elements that amount to
significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. In particular, Applicant's claims 1,
12, and 13, as presented herein, include specific recitations directed to other than
what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
For example, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and
non-generic arrangement of the features of the claims (e.g., the combination of
features of the claims is non-conventional and non-generic).
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, and 12-13 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, and 12-13 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include “system, storage, a processor, a computer and A non-transitory recording medium a computer program”
Examiner asserts that system, storage, a processor, a computer and A non-transitory recording medium a computer program are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, fig. 2 and 181, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well-understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years.
Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F .3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-11 are directed toward a system (machine) and claim 12 is directed toward a method (process) and claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory (machine) Thus, claims 1-12 fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-13 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 12-13 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. An electric power usage management system comprising:
a storage that stores process management data representing a flow of a plurality of tasks related to production of a plurality of items; and
a processor coupled to the storage, wherein for each task of the plurality of tasks, the process management data includes: task information that includes information related to the task with respect to each item related to the task;
element information that includes information related to each of a plurality of elements associated with the task, and is associated with the task information on the task; and
environment information that includes information related to an electric power usage amount of each of the plurality of elements, and is associated with the element information on the element, and
the processor is configured to: calculate the electric power usage amount in an item-by-item basis, according to information represented by the process management data, and association of information,
provide electric power usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated electric power amount,
for a task related to items of a plurality of different item types among the plurality of tasks, associate information related to items of at least a first item type and a second item type with the task information in the process management data,
refer to the process management data, and calculate the electric power usage amount in a case where the item of the first item type is changed to the item of the second item type, based at least on an electric power usage amount corresponding to an element mode of the second item type in the environment information with which the information related to the item of the first item type is associated, and
based on the electric power usage amount being lower in the case where the item of the first item type is chanced to the item of a second item type, causing production of a finished product with the item of the second item type.
The Applicant's Specification titled "RESOURCE USAGE AMOUNT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND RESOURCE USAGE AMOUNT MANAGEMENT METHOD
" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for providing usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated electric power usage amount" (Spec. [0001]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 12-13 recites the abstract idea.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 12-13 are directed to the abstract idea of calculating the electric power usage amount to provide the usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated resource usage amount. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices, (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of calculating/determining the electric power usage amount to provide the usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated electric power usage amount. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and because the independent claims 1, and 12-13 recites the abstract idea of calculating/determining the resource usage amount to provide the usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated resource usage amount. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-11 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 wherein the plurality of elements are 4M elements that are Man, Machine, Method, and Material.
claim 3 wherein for the task related to items of a plurality of different item types among the plurality of tasks,
a plurality of different element modes depending on the item type is provided, with respect to at least one of the 4M elements that is associated with the task among Man, Machine, and Method,
the environment information associated with the element information on the 4M element includes information representing the electric power usage amount corresponding to the element mode, with respect to each of the plurality of element modes, and
the processor is configured to calculate the electric power usage amount with respect to each item type, based on the process management data.
claim 4 wherein for the task related to items of a plurality of different item types, the task information includes information representing an operating time slot with respect to each item,
for each of the plurality of element modes, the element information includes information representing the time slot corresponding to the element mode,
for each of the plurality of element modes, the environment information includes information representing the electric power usage amount per unit time period, the processor is configured to identify a task time slot that is a time slot for the task about the item, from the task information,
identify the element mode corresponding to a time slot including the identified task time slot, from the element information associated with the task information,
identify the electric power usage amount per unit time period corresponding to the identified element mode, from the environment information associated with the element information, and
calculate a product of the identified electric power usage amount per unit time period and the identified task time slot, as the electric power usage amount for the item about the task.
claim 5 wherein for the task related to items of a plurality of different item types,
if the element associated with the task is Machine, the plurality of element modes are a plurality of operation modes,
if the element associated with the task is Method, the plurality of element modes are a plurality of procedure types, and
if the element associated with the task is Man, the plurality of element modes are a plurality of skill levels.
claim 6 wherein for each of the plurality of tasks,
the element information on the element associated with the task includes information representing a time slot corresponding to each item,
the environment information includes information representing the electric power usage amount per unit time period, and
the processor is configured to identify the time slot corresponding to the item, from the element information associated with the task,
identify the electric power usage amount per unit time period, from the environment information associated with the element information, and
calculate a product of the identified electric power usage amount per unit time period and the identified time slot, as the electric power usage amount for the item about the task.
claim 7 wherein the electric power usage amount represented by the usage amount information is the electric power usage amount as a result of aggregation in a predetermined unit or in a unit designated by a user.
claim 8 wherein the plurality of tasks range over a plurality of suppliers,
the usage amount information represents the electric power usage amount, with respect to each of one or more first supplier categories to which a designated supplier belongs, and each of one or more second supplier categories of one or more suppliers other than the supplier,
for first and second suppliers, any of following (X) and (Y), or following (X) and (Y) are switched by the processor in response to a request issued by the supplier, wherein
(X) indicates the one or more first supplier categories are Scope 1 and/or Scope 2, and the one or more second supplier categories are Scope 3, and
(Y) indicates the one or more first supplier categories are an own company, and the one or more second supplier categories include an upstream one and a downstream one.
claim 9 wherein the plurality of elements are 4M elements that are Man, Machine, Method, and Material, and
for at least one of (X) and (Y), with respect to each of the one or more supplier categories, the electric power usage amount represented by the usage amount information is an electric power usage amount as a result of aggregation in a predetermined unit or in a unit designated by a user.
claim 10 wherein the process management data represents a model that includes a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges, and
for each of the plurality of tasks, the model includes a node that includes the task information corresponding to the task, a node that includes the element information associated with the task information, and a node that includes the environment information associated with the element information.
claim 11 wherein the processor is configured to
provide information representing the electric power usage amount about the first item type, and the electric power usage amount calculated about the second item type, as the usage amount information.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 12-13.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-13 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 1 (similarly claims 12-13) include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. Management system, a storage, a processor
Claim 12. A computer,
Claim 13. A non-transitory recording medium a computer program, a computer,
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claim 1 (similarly claims 12-13) pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of system, storage, a processor, a computer and A non-transitory recording medium a computer program. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. See Figure 1 of the specification. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, and 12-13 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for calculating/determining the electric power usage amount to provide the usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated resource usage amount and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention calculating/determining the electric power usage amount to provide the usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated resource usage amount. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-11 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 12-13 respectively, for example, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the additional elements: claim 10, a model. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 12-13, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 12-13, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, and 12-13. system, storage, a processor, a computer and a non-transitory recording medium recording a computer program. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to calculating/determining the electric power usage amount to provide the usage amount information that is information based on the aggregated resource usage amount.
Claims 1-13 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Closest prior art to the invention include Miyamoto US 2019/0271969: Information collection and display system, information collection method, and information display method view of Aissaoui, Najla, Mohamed Haouari, and Elkafi Hassini. "Supplier selection and order lot sizing modeling: A review." Computers & operations research 34.12 (2007): 3516-3540. Nishikawa et al. US 2014/0316840: Apparatus and method for evaluation of engineering level. Sawahata et al. US 2022/0171908: Support system and support method supporting system construction . Lindo CA 2966075: System and method for fulfilling e-commerce orders from a hierarchy of fulfilment centers. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claim 1, “for a task related to items of a plurality of different item types among the plurality of tasks, associate information related to items of at least a first item type and a second item type with the task information in the process management data, refer to the process management data, and calculate the electric power usage amount in a case where the item of the first item type is changed to the item of the second item type, based at least on an electric power usage amount corresponding to an element mode of the second item type in the environment information with which the information related to the item of the first item type is associated, and based on the electric power usage amount being lower in the case where the item of the first item type is chanced to the item of a second item type, causing production of a finished product with the item of the second item type.” The reason for withdrawn the 35 USC 102/103 rejection of claims 1-13 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aissaoui, Najla, Mohamed Haouari, and Elkafi Hassini. "Supplier selection and order lot sizing modeling: A review." Computers & operations research 34.12 (2007): 3516-3540.
Lindo CA 2966075: System and method for fulfilling e-commerce orders from a hierarchy of fulfilment centers.
Caputo et al. US 2023/0140029: Managing in-person property access using geofences.
Sakaino et al. US 2023/0081485: Information processing device, information processing method and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Sawahata et al. US 2022/0171908: Support system and support method supporting system construction.
Ishida WO 2020/255515: Information system and information management method.
Crawford et al. US 2008/0235703: On-demand utility services utilizing yield management.
Sanjabi et al. US 2018/0143858: Method and system for meeting multiple slas with partial QOS control.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624