Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 9/12/2024.
Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 9/12/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding 21-40 under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claims 21, 29, 38 as representative recite:
identifying a bulk perishable product for delivery from a first location to a second location, wherein the bulk perishable product includes a plurality of portions that are aggregated when delivered to the second location; defining a first geozone for the first location using a first geofence; defining a second geozone for the second location using a second geofence; tracking a location of a mobile computing device; determining that the mobile computing device has entered the first geozone; in response to determining that the mobile computing device has entered the first geozone: receiving a request to proceed with pick up of a portion of the plurality of portions for the bulk perishable product; causing a ticket corresponding to the portion to be displayed to the user on the mobile computing device; instructing the user to pick up the portion of the plurality of portions of the bulk perishable product in accordance with the ticket; determining that the mobile computing device has exited the first geozone;in response to determining the mobile computing device has exited the first geozone, updating the ticket with information regarding the portion picked up by the user; determining that the mobile computing device has entered the second geozone; and in response to determining that the mobile computing device has entered the second geozone: receiving an indication that the portion has been delivered to the second location; and in response to receiving the indication that the portion has been delivered to the second location, automatically dispatching a subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the bulk perishable product to be picked up at the first location for delivery to the second location.
Under step 2A (prong 1), the limitations above recite an abstract idea because they recite certain methods of organizing human activity (see: 2019 PEG, p. 52). This is because the above limitations of claim 21, 29, 38 recite pickup coordination, delivery scheduling, ticketing, dispatching which are commercial interaction. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (see again: 2019 PEG, p. 52).
Secondly, at least some of the limitations of claims 1, 30, 32 recite mathematical concepts, such as mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, e.x. geofence entry/exit detection, coordinate-based spatial determination. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claims is also understood to recite an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (see: 2019 PEG, p. 52).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claims 21, 29, 38 do recite additional elements, including computing system, memory, processor,... Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claims are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Even assuming arguendo steps of track GPS data, compare geolocation o geofence, update tickets, dispatch tasks…, etc. are taken as additional, these elements represent nothing more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, and/or data storage activity). Such activity is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see: 2019 PEG, p. 55). There is no improvement in GPS system, geofence calculation or mobile computing itself.
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular methode or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 22-28, 30-37, 39-40 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 21, 29, 38 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 21, 29, 38 taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, and once again for the sake of argument considering receiving, processing …, etc. as additional, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 22-28, 30-37, 39-40 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 21-40 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton (U.S. Patent Publication No. US20030004747), in view of Staton et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,317,927).
Regarding claim 21, 29, 37-38, 40, Burton teaches
a memory that stores computer instructions; and a processor that performs actions when executing the computer instructions, the actions including:
identifying ready-mix concrete for delivery from a first location to a second location, wherein the ready-mix concrete includes a plurality of portions that are aggregated when delivered to the second location; (pre-mix concrete delivery to bld sites, [2-7], [20, 23]),
tracking a location of a mobile computing device; (truck with GPS [3, 22, 37],
receiving a request to proceed with pick up of a portion of the plurality of portions for the ready-mix concrete; (monitoring delivery, an electronic proof of delivery system, [23-25]),
causing a ticket corresponding to the portion to be displayed to the user on the mobile computing device; instructing the user to pick up the portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete in accordance with the ticket;
(the driver being provided electronically with delivery information, [25], scheduled to load, [27-30])
updating the ticket with information regarding the portion picked up by the user; receiving an indication that the portion has been delivered to the second location; and in response to receiving the indication that the portion has been delivered to the second location, automatically dispatch a subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete to be picked up at the first location for delivery to the second location, (a customer accessible data file regularly updated to provide customer information on orders and deliveries, [20], when delivery is commenced and when it finishes, and the system can then re-estimate the return time for the truck at the depot and schedule its next delivery run either to the same site or another job entirely, [25]).
Burton substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, does not explicitly disclose defining a first geozone for the first location using a first geofence; defining a second geozone for the second location using a second geofence; in response to determining that the first number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the first geofence is odd, determining that the mobile computing device has entered the first geozone; in response to determining that the mobile computing device has entered the first geozone. determining a second number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the first geofence of the first geozone by holding either the longitude or the latitude constant during the tracking of the location of the mobile computing device through the first geozone;in response to determining that the second number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the first geofence is even, determining that the mobile computing device has exited the first geozone; in response to determining the mobile computing device has exited the first geozone, determining a number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the second geofence of the second geozone by holding either the longitude or the latitude constant during the tracking of the location of the mobile computing device from the first location to the second location; in response to determining that the number of times the mobile computing device has crossed the second geofence is odd, determining that the mobile computing device has entered the second geozone; and in response to determining that the mobile computing device has entered the second geozone. Burton teaches truck arrival at plant via GPS and stationary detection [22, 25]. Burton does not teach geofence boundary intersection and event-triggered entry detection.
However, Staton teaches geographical zones and boundaries, Col.5-6, the zones and boundaries allow a user having a PDA 105 to receive information of the location of another user wearing a second PDA. Stanton further teaches A position fix 520 in the pixel map 500 is mapped from the current geographical location of the PDA 105. A test can be performed to for each zone for each position fix 520 in order to determine if the PDA 105 is inside the zone 515 or outside the zone 515. Thus, for each zone 515, the test starts with a simple check if the position fix 520 is inside or outside the pixel map 500. If the current position fix 520 is inside the pixel map 500, a more extensive test is completed by plotting the position fix 520 inside the bounding box and drawing four lines in four directions (north, south, east and west) from the position fix 520 to the borders of the pixel map 500. Subsequently, the number of zone boundary crossings 530 is counted for each of the four lines 525, Col.16 ln 57-67, Col.6 , entry-exit Fig 5AB.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Burton, to include the above limitations, as taught by Staton, in order to efficiently monitor individual devices, (Staton, see background). Burton uses GPS tracking and site arrival detection, while Staton provides well known geofence based entry/exit detection using boundary intersections. Substituting one known detection method (GPS threshold) with another method (geofence) is a predictable variation. Burton uses mapping and route optimization and combinting with Staton’s geofence yields predictable results, improving accuracy of entry and exit detection.
Burton does not explicitly disclose determining a first number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the first geofence of the first geozone by holding either the longitude or the latitude constant during the tracking of the location of the mobile computing device to the first location; It would have been obvious to implement this method once one chooses to detect entry/exit of the geozone via geofence crossings. One skilled artisan knowing geofenze technoques would recognize that entry vs exit can be determined by counting crossings of the boundary and the choice of holding one coordinate constant is simplay a design alternative. The choice to hold one coordinate constant is an arbitrary optimization of geofense crossing logic.
Regarding claim 22, 30, Burton teaches the processor causes the ticket to be displayed to the user on the mobile computing device by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, [23-25], however, does not explicitly disclose the further actions including: causing previous and subsequent delivery information to be displayed with the ticket to the user on the mobile computing device. Staton teaches displaying tasks, Fig. 5A-C, Col.15-16.
Regarding claim 23, 31, Burton teaches the processor automatically dispatches the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete to be picked up at the first location for delivery to the second location by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, the further actions including: generating a second ticket corresponding to the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete; causing the second ticket to be displayed to a second user of a second mobile computing device; and instructing the second user to pick up the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete in accordance with the second ticket, delivery address, [23-25].
Regarding claim 24, 32, 39, Burton teaches the processor automatically dispatches the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete to be picked up at the first location for delivery to the second location by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, the further actions including: of the ready-mix concrete; causing the second ticket to be displayed to a second user of a second mobile computing device; and instructing the second user to pick up the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete in accordance with the second ticket, [4, 20, 23, 47]. Burton does not explicitly teach generating a second ticket corresponding to the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions. Staton teaches multiple devices zone triggered tickets assignments, Col.6.
Regarding claim 25, 33, Burton teaches the processor receives the request to proceed with pick up of the portion of the plurality of portions for the ready-mix concrete by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, the further actions including: receiving user input from the mobile computing device indicating that the user is ready to pick up of the portion of the plurality of portions for the ready-mix concrete, (driver input confirming ready status, [39]).
Regarding claim 26, 34, Burton teaches the processor receives the request to proceed with pick up of the portion of the plurality of portions for the ready-mix concrete by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, (device located within truck cab, [37]. Staton teaches receiving an indication that the mobile computing device is tethered to a vehicle and ready to pick up, (device association checks for zone-event validity, Col.6).
Regarding claim 27, 35, Burton teaches tracking multiple trucks, [23-25], however, Staton teaches displaying a map that shows locations of each portion of the plurality of portions in process of being delivered to from the first location to the second location, Fig. 5A-C.
Regarding claim 28, 36, Burton does not teach determining that the mobile computing device has entered a third geozone; and in response to determining that the mobile computing device has entered the third geozone, triggering an alert that the portion of the plurality of plurality of portions for the bulk perishable product has entered an informational geozone. Staton teaches geographical zones in which multiple PDA’s may operate, Fig. 8A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627