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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 4, claim 9 line 5 and claim 15 line 4 recite the term “application”; however, neither the claim nor specification clearly defines what is meant by this term because the specification uses “application” to refer to at least four to five structurally and functionally distinct entities and the claim does not specify which of these structurally distinct entities constitutes the claimed “application”. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether the claimed “application” is a blockchain-based distributed application, a 5G network function, end-user software, or something else; moreover, each of these has fundamentally different structure, function and architectural position. One of ordinary skill in the art reading the claim term “application” in light of the specification would face genuine uncertainty about which type of application is being claimed and what species of “application” falls within the claim boundary. In addition, the recitation of “selecting an application based on the wireless network identifier” is indefinite because this merely recites a function or result achieved by the invention. The specification describes at least three different entities performing application selection, each through a different mechanism (see as-filed 0018, 0021, 0037); however, the claim omits any recitation of any intermediary by which the selection occurs. It is unclear whether the limitation encompasses direct selection by a gateway, indirect selection through a UDM or UDSF lookup, selection by an AF within a network slice, or all of the above. As a result, the claim recites a result (an application is selected) achieved through an undefined relationship (based on) without specifying which entity performs the selection or what mechanism is used. In addition, claim 1 line 5 and claim 15 line 6 recite “product-tracking transaction”; however, the term is not defined in the specification and there is no recitation of how this is distinct from “item-tracking transaction” and “item-tracking result” which are used in the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether the limitation is limited to the blockchain ledger transaction described in the spec, includes the generation of any of the seven enumerated result types, or encompasses any data operation involving a product identifier or something else. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Additionally the claim 9 line 5 recitation of “application” creates a self-referential construction because an Application Function (AF) which is itself an “application”, under ordinary meaning, comprises a network slice (see as-filed para 0027). If “application” in the claim is read to encompass an AF, the limitation “selecting an application by processing…with the wireless network slice” would have the network slice selecting itself. It cannot be determined with reasonable certainty whether the “application” must be an entity external to the slice, whether the “application” can be an entity co-existing with the slice, whether the claim requires a two-layer architecture or permits a single-entity architecture, or something else. As a result of the limitation having two or more plausible constructions, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether this self-referential construction falls within or outside of the claim scope. In addition, claim 9 line 5 recites “selecting an application by processing at least one of the wireless network identifier and the product identifier with the wireless network slice”; however, it is indefinite for two independent reasons. First, the term “processing” does not inform one of ordinary skill in the art what specific computational operation is performed. The specification describes at least two different operations that could constitute “processing” (see as-filed para 0030 and 0037). In one embodiment AF itself translates through a local data structure. In the other, AF delegates to UDSF, which performs the translation. The claim uses the single word “processing” to encompass these structurally different operations without distinguishing between them. Under BRI, “processing” could also encompass any other computational operation, making the metes and bounds unclear. Second, the prepositional phrase “with the wireless network slice” is ambiguous because at least two plausible constructions are reasonable – the network slice itself performs the processing (see as-filed para 0030) and the network slice delegates the processing (see as-filed para 0037). As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether “processing…with the wireless network slice” requires the slice to perform the processing directly or is satisfied when the slice delegates to an external function like UDSF.
In addition, claim 15 line 4 recites “a wireless network slice to select an application based on the wireless network identifier”; however, as-filed para 0027 defines the AF as comprising the wireless network slice. Under this construction, the AF, which can also be considered an application, would allow for a single AF simultaneously serving as the wireless network slice structural component and the application selected by that slice. Alternatively, if “application” means an entity external to the slice, per as-filed 0037, an entity that is not part of the slice performs the actual selection. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether the claim requires the slice itself to select the application, or is satisfied when the slice delegates selection to UDSF, or something else.
In addition, claim 15 line 6 recites “…a processing node…”; however, the detailed description of the as-filed disclosure never uses the term and describes multiple structurally distinct entities that could correspond to it (Ledger node, node circuitry, network data center or NF hardware). The definiteness requirement of the system claim is not satisfied because para 0008 merely restates the claim language without providing structural content, and the detailed description describes multiple structurally distinct entities that could each be the processing node, consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the structural boundaries of this claim element.
In addition, claim 15 recites three system components; however, the claim does not define the structural or functional relationship between the wireless network slice and the processing node. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine from the claim whether the processing node is part of the wireless network slice, or external to it; whether the processing node receives the selected application indication from the slice, or independently determines the application; how the selected application identified by the network slice is communicated to or executed by the processing node; and whether intermediary components are required but are simply omitted from the claim. As a result, a system claim that recites disconnected structural components without defining how they interact does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
In addition, claim 20 recites a double “to…to…” construction that appears to recite the same function twice – wirelessly detecting identifiers transmitted from the product – with the second “to” clause essentially restating the parent claim limitation. It is unclear whether the claim requires two separate detection acts; a single detection act where the source is specified as the power-harvesting microprocessor; or something else entirely.
As a result, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
1. Claims 1 – 10 and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The independent claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity – tracking a product by receiving an identifier and selecting/executing a tracking application based on that identifier. Independent claims 1 and 15 describe the abstract idea of selecting a transaction processing method and performing a product-tracking transaction; and claim 9 describes the abstract idea of selecting a processing method and tracking product arrivals/departures.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Pertaining to claim 1) A method comprising:
wirelessly detecting a wireless network identifier and a product identifier that were [additional element – data gathering activity and receiving/transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional]
wirelessly transmitted from a product; [additional element – describes the data source which is conventional product identification technology]
selecting an application based on the wireless network identifier; and [certain methods of organizing human activity – choosing a processing method/routine based on received data is analogous to routing a transaction to the appropriate handler]
performing a product-tracking transaction for the product [certain methods of organizing human activity – product/inventory tracking is a fundamental commercial practice]
by executing the selected application to process the product identifier. [additional element – generic computer implementation of the abstract idea]
STEP 1: YES.
STEP 2A Prong One: YES, certain methods of organizing human activity. The abstract idea are limitations (ii) – (iii).
STEP 2A Prong Two: No
STEP 2B: NO
When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole lacks any element that: improves computer functionality, the functioning of a wireless network or distributed ledger, provides unconventional technical solution, or contains specific implementation details beyond the wireless network and blockchain as tools to implement the abstract idea of product tracking.
Conclusion:
There are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent-eligible application, such that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself,
the claim is not patent-eligible (Step 2B: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
(Pertaining to claim 9) A method comprising:
detecting a wireless network identifier and a product identifier that were [additional element – data gathering activity and receiving/transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional]
wirelessly transmitted from a product; [additional element – describes the data source which is conventional product identification technology]
selecting a wireless network slice based on the wireless network identifier; [additional element – network routing/configuration step at a level of generality merely linking it to a technological environment. It is recited as a generic routing/selection mechanism without any particular improvement to network slicing technology]
selecting an application by processing at least one of the wireless network identifier and the product identifier [certain methods of organizing human activity – choosing a processing method/routine based on received/product data is analogous to routing a transaction to the appropriate handler] with the wireless network slice [additional element – using the network slice to make the selection]; and
tracking at least one of an arrival of the product at a location and a departure of the product from the location [certain methods of organizing human activity – core commercial tracking activity is tracking product movement through locations is inventory/supply chain management]
by processing the product identifier with the selected application. [additional element – generic computer implementation of processing data with a software application]
STEP 1: YES.
STEP 2A Prong One: YES, certain methods of organizing human activity. The abstract idea are limitations (iii) – (iv).
STEP 2A Prong Two: No
STEP 2B: NO
When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole lacks any element that: improves computer functionality, the functioning of a wireless network or distributed ledger, provides unconventional technical solution, or contains specific implementation details beyond the wireless network and blockchain as tools to implement the abstract idea of product tracking.
Conclusion:
There are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent-eligible application, such that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself,
the claim is not patent-eligible (Step 2B: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
(Pertaining to claim 15) A wireless communication system comprising:
a wireless transceiver to wirelessly detect a wireless network identifier and a product identifier [additional element – data gathering activity and receiving/transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional] that were wirelessly transmitted from a product; [additional element – describes the data source which is conventional product identification technology]
a wireless network slice to select an application [certain methods of organizing human activity – selecting an application/processing method]; and [additional element – using the network slice recited at a high level of generality to make the selection]
based on the wireless network identifier; and [additional element – network routing/configuration step at a level of generality merely linking it to a technological environment]
a processing node to perform a product-tracking transaction for the product [certain methods of organizing human activity – core commercial tracking activity is tracking product movement through locations is inventory/supply chain management]
by executing the selected application to process the product identifier. [additional element – generic computer implementation of processing data with a software application]
STEP 1: YES.
STEP 2A Prong One: YES, certain methods of organizing human activity. The abstract idea are limitations (ii) – (iii).
STEP 2A Prong Two: No
STEP 2B: NO
When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole lacks any element that: improves computer functionality, the functioning of a wireless network or distributed ledger, provides unconventional technical solution, or contains specific implementation details beyond the wireless network and blockchain as tools to implement the abstract idea of product tracking.
Conclusion:
There are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent-eligible application, such that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself,
the claim is not patent-eligible (Step 2B: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 1 – 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burman (US Pub. No. 2005/0234785 A1) in view of Bryant (US Pub. No. 2005/0203914 A1)
Per claim 1, Burman (US Pub. No. 2005/0234785 A1) is relied upon to teach Wirelessly detect […] a product identifier that were wirelessly transmitting from the product
Personal computer 1500 is connected to optical input device 1505 and RFID input/output device 1510. Both of these devices are not required. A unique package identifier can be obtained from either of these peripheral devices. In addition, numerous other types of input devices capable of obtaining a unique package identifier can be used.Burman, ¶ 83, emphasis added
Either the optical input device 1505 or the RFID device 1510 is used to obtain at least a package identifier from the machine-readable portions of the label or tag. The optical input device 1505 can obtain an identifier by scanning a barcode on the label, or the RFID device can activate the RFID tag in the label to cause it to transmit information identifying the package to the RFID device.Burman, ¶ 85, emphasis added
Performing a product tracking transaction for the product by executing the selected application to process the product identifier.
The computer 1500 then forms a database query based on the information obtained from the package. The query is sent over the network 1515 to the database 1520. A single database server is depicted in FIG. 15. Multiple servers, however, may be queried. Parcel shipping companies generally have multiple systems that store information regarding packages being handled by the company. A query of multiple database systems is within the scope of the invention. This is step 1605 shown in the flowchart of FIG. 16. The computer 1500 can optionally include information regarding the present location of the package in its query. Package location information may not be needed if recent location scans have been performed that reported the location of the package to the database server(s)/system(s). Burman, ¶ 85, emphasis added
The database 1520 searches one or more tables based on the package identifier information in the query (and this again can include a search of multiple databases). Once the database locates the record or records associated with the package identifier, detailed information regarding the package from those records is returned to the processor of computer 1500 as is shown in step 1610 of FIG. 16. The information can be as narrow as a single routing instruction or as broad as each item of information stored in the database regarding the package associated with that package identifier.Burman, ¶ 86, emphasis added
Once a proper course of action regarding the routing of the package has been determined, the routing instructions can be indicated on the updateable visual display attached to the package as is shown in step 1615 of FIG. 16. The instructions can be as simple as a brief code indicating, for example, a conveyor belt on which the package should be placed, or as complex as a few sentences or a paragraph, for example, giving detailed instructions regarding the routing of the packageBurman, ¶ 89, emphasis added
Burman does not teach to detect a wireless network identifier or selecting an application based on the wireless network identifier. However, in the analogous prior art,
Bryant (US Pub. No. 2005/0203914 A1) is relied upon to teach:
Wirelessly detect a wireless network identifier that was wirelessly transmitted from the product and selecting an application based on the wireless network identifier
The RFID transmission may include a particular number or numbers that may be associated with particular vendor, product and/or service information, such as a vendor name, vendor contact information including, for example, a phone number, network address, mailing address or other, quantity information, cost, price, type of product, type of service, etc. Thus, when used to request or order information or make a purchase, the number transmitted in the signal may be used to access the related information stored in a database as will be explained in more detail herein.Bryant, ¶ 18, emphasis added
Once the device reads the RFID information, in a generating step 34, the point of advertising ordering application controls the wireless ordering device 4 to generate a wireless request that includes the RFID information. The request is preferably transmitted from the wireless ordering device 4 over the network(s) 6 to a vendor system 12 and/or the commerce data organization system 14 as previously described.Bryant, ¶ 28, emphasis added
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to modify Burman using the teachings of Bryant to include detecting a wireless network identifier (e.g., “network address”) and selecting an application based on the wireless network identifier (e.g., generating a wireless request that include the RFID information including the network identifier) in order to access the related information stored in a database. The combination could be achieved by using Bryant’s teachings to detect the network address and generate a request including the network address in order to improve the “database query” such as described by Burman, ¶ 85, or to enable the system to query different databases based on different network addresses. Burman expressly teaches multiple databases at ¶ 85. A person would be motivated to make the combination for the benefits of automated data entry which make the system easier to use and to reduce the chance of user error. See Bryant, ¶ 3-5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Burman and Bryant in order to arrive at the invention specified in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Shaw whose telephone number is (571)270-5191. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 6:00 AM-3:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN F SHAW/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432