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 .
Priority
Application 18/839,461 was filed on August 19, 2024 and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/320,321 filed March 16, 2022.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-16, and 18 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 10 were amended in the reply filed March 24, 2026. No claims were cancelled or added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 5, 2026 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
101:
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and it is withdrawn. Examiner notes that “controlling a machine to transport the connected product to a designated location” integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0208887 to Fields et al. (Fields) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0081867 to Whitman et al. (Whitman) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0215544 to High et al. (High).
As to claims 1 and 10, Fields teaches:
(Claim 1) a processor-based method for identifying or determining a callout event sequence of a connected product at a point or site in a supply chain (“… A processor responsive to the reader stores in a database information corresponding to the reading of each tag at each successive point and the time of each reading …” [0013]);
(Claim 10) processor-based system for identifying or determining a callout event sequence of a connected product at a point or site in a supply chain, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory (“… A processor responsive to the reader stores in a database information corresponding to the reading of each tag at each successive point and the time of each reading …” [0013]);
obtaining a real-time parameter of the connected product at a first location within the supply chain by receiving an output from an interrogation of a digital trigger including a sensor that is attached to or incorporated into the connected product (“… For example, FIG. 2 shows a portion of a hypothetical supply chain in which a product is initially tagged 202 with an RFID label, then routed through several locations equipped with RFID readers, portal A 204, portal B 206, and portal C 208, after which the product may be shipped to one of two distribution centers, distribution center 1 210 or distribution center 2 212, each of which has an RFID scanner to read the tags of products as they are received …” and “… tracking at 404 the package at a plurality of locations (points 1-N) in a supply chain 104 using RFID readers 106 in electronic communication with a central RFID information system (processor 108) to create tracking information in a database 110 that includes time and location information associated with the reading of the tag by the RFID readers” [0056 and 0070-72] Examiner notes that, per paragraphs [0025 and 0034] of Applicant’s specification, an RFID tag is interpreted to be a “sensor”);
determining a comparison result by comparing the real-time parameter of the connected product with a target parameter using a condition (“… A precedence table can be constructed of the expected or known pathways that objects can take in the supply chain, and when unusual or new pathways are encountered, they can be evaluated in terms of the precedence table to determine if unusual errors have occurred or to call for additional investigation or to take other remedial measures …” and “… comparing at 408 the observed pathway of the product to a compilation of valid pathways 410 for products in the supply chain to determine if the observed pathway is a valid pathway …” [0056-0063 and 0070-0075] Examiner notes that an expected/known pathway in the precedence table taught by Fields is a target parameter and the path tracking of products using RFID tags is the real-time parameter);
identifying a related callout based on the comparison result (“… The detection of the product in an unexpected location can trigger an alarm that may result in email being sent to a supervisor to seek directions, or automatic actions may be taken to resolve the problem…” and “… If the comparison indicates that the observed pathway matches a valid pathway, then the observed pathway is optionally labeled as reliable at 412 and stored in the database. On the other hand, if the comparison indicates that the observed pathway does not match a valid pathway, then the observed pathway is evaluated at 414 as noted above …” [0056-0057 and 0070-0075]);
wherein identifying the related callout further comprises comparing traversal data of the connected product with target traversal data (“The paths that boxes, pallets, or individual items take through the supply chain can be tracked and analyzed with the system of the present invention … The detection of the product in an unexpected location can trigger an alarm that may result in email being sent to a supervisor to seek directions, or automatic actions may be taken to resolve the problem …” and “… A precedence table can be constructed of the expected or known pathways that objects can take in the supply chain, and when unusual or new pathways are encountered, they can be evaluated in terms of the precedence table to determine if unusual errors have occurred or to call for additional investigation or to take other remedial measures …” and “… comparing at 408 the observed pathway of the product to a compilation of valid pathways 410 for products in the supply chain to determine if the observed pathway is a valid pathway …” [0056-0057 and 0063 and 0070-0075] Examiner notes that an expected/known pathway in the precedence table taught by Fields is target traversal data (as well as a target parameter noted above) and the path tracking of products using RFID tags is traversal data (as well as the real-time parameter noted above),
wherein the traversal data includes the route taken by the connected product through the supply chain and the time taken to traverse each segment of the route (“In one embodiment, the information in the data structure would include legacy information such as the amount of time it takes for a tag and its product to move from one reader to the next …” and “The paths that boxes, pallets, or individual items take through the supply chain can be tracked and analyzed with the system of the present invention …” [0053 and 0056-0057]),
and wherein the comparison detects when the connected product location is tracked to an unexpected diversion site or along a route that is greater than a threshold distance away from an expected route (“… The detection of the product in an unexpected location can trigger an alarm that may result in email being sent to a supervisor to seek directions, or automatic actions may be taken to resolve the problem …” [0056-0057] Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation and per paragraph [0112] of Applicant’s specification, the “threshold distance” is only applied to the “expected route” and not the “unexpected diversion site”. In other words, this limitation is interpreted to recite two separate options: 1) the connected product location is tracked to an unexpected diversion site; or 2) the connected product location is tracked along a route that is greater than a threshold distance away from an expected route);
and based on the callout, remedying the event by performing automated actions (“… The detection of the product in an unexpected location can trigger an alarm that may result in email being sent to a supervisor to seek directions, or automatic actions may be taken to resolve the problem …” and “… Some paths, for example, may be known to be the result of problems requiring action (e.g., theft, an equipment malfunction, improper training of a new employee, etc.). When such a path is encountered, an alert may be generated to call for corrective action or to automatically initiate corrective action or an investigation into the possible problem …” [0057 and 0060]);
wherein the callout relates to at least one of dwell time, traversal, and an item status transition (“… A "missing product event" refers to a product that does not physically reach an intended location. This can be due to diversion or theft, a problem in conveying or shipping the product, physically moving the object to an unexpected location, etc.” and “… the pathway A-D-F may be due to a missed read at DC1 or to shrinkage, with shrinkage being the more likely cause of most such events …” [0055 and 0065-0066]).
Fields does not teach, wherein the real-time parameter comprises one or more of: (i) temperature, (ii) humidity, and (iii) temperature change; automated actions comprising Whitman teaches, wherein the real-time parameter comprises one or more of: (i) temperature, (ii) humidity, and (iii) temperature change (“… In embodiments, a sensor 212 could be placed in the clamshell(s) themselves to measure the specific temperature and humidity experienced by the strawberries …” [0119-0121]);
automated actions comprising (“… If an item, e.g., 210, is determined to be unacceptable, it may be redirected 1814. Redirection may include disposal if the item is completely unsalvageable …” and “… The recommendation circuit 4314 may further generate, in response to the indication of the deviation, a recommended action value 4320 corresponding to disposal of at least one of the plurality of items of sale …” [0127-0128 and 0168]);
wherein the connected product includes a perishable (“… Non-limiting examples of items of sale 210 include produce products, dairy products, meat products, fish products, and/or any other type of consumable product which is subject to spoilage, e.g., perishable, including frozen products …” [0101-0102]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the real-time parameter comprises one or more of: (i) temperature, (ii) humidity, and (iii) temperature change; automated actions comprising
Fields in view of Whitman does not teach, automated actions comprising: (ii) controlling a machine to transport the connected product to a designated location. However High teaches, automated actions comprising: (ii) controlling a machine to transport the connected product to a designated location (“… The autonomous robot device can be configured to transport the storage containers to a specified location in the facility” and “… The routing engine 220 can send new instructions to the robotic device to pick up new perishable items and discard of the picked up perishable items” and “… The routing engine 220 can send new instructions to the robotic device to pick up new perishable items and discard of the picked up perishable items …” [0013 and 0042 and 0047]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, automated actions comprising: (ii) controlling a machine to transport the connected product to a designated location, as taught by High with the supply chain event tracking of Fields in view of Whitman. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of High that doing so would perform various tasks without human intervention [0002].
As to claims 3 and 12, Fields in view of Whitman in view of High teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as discussed above. Fields does not teach, wherein the callout includes dwell time, and the connected product has been identified as having remained past a threshold time at supply chain site. However, Whitman teaches, wherein the callout includes dwell time, and the connected product has been identified as having remained past a threshold time at supply chain site (“… A “deviation”, as used herein, may include any occurrence that is not in conformance with an intended course of action, e.g., a SOP. Non-limiting examples may include delays in a supply chain, exposure of an item of sale to non-SOP compliant environment (e.g. temperature or humidity deviations), excessive storage time [i.e., dwell time] of an item of sale in a storage unit …” and “In an illustrative example, data from the micro-climate sensors 212 may result in the product being rejected for food safety reasons, which may be based at least in part on a SOP 900 (FIG. 9) associated with transport such as temperature out of range, amount of time above or below a threshold, and the like …” [0100 and 0127]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the callout includes dwell time, and the connected product has been identified as having remained past a threshold time at supply chain site, as taught by Whitman with the supply chain event tracking of Fields. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Whitman that doing so would provide retailers with insight into the quality of goods being received, the quality of goods being disposed of, and assistance in identifying contributory factors related to the quality of the item [0004].
As to claims 4 and 13, Fields in view of Whitman in view of High teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as discussed above. Fields further teaches, wherein the digital trigger comprises a unique identification number for the connected product (“… Each tag has a unique electronic product code (EPC) which can be read at successive points along a supply chain to provide information which is used to determine key performance indicators (KPI) of the chain” and “… However, it is contemplated that the tags 102 may be any device or marking that identifies a product or process. For example, in addition to RFID tags, the tag may be an optical tag or marking, a bar code, a serialized bar code, a UPC, a serial number, a model number or any other device or marking …” [0002 and 0036]).
Fields in view of Whitman does not teach, and a means for determining the geographical location of the connected product. However, High teaches, and a means for determining the geographical location of the connected product (“… The RFID device may then transmit the location of the shelving unit and/or tote and data corresponding to changes in the memory to the computing system” [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and a means for determining the geographical location of the connected product, as taught by High with the supply chain event tracking of Fields in view of Whitman. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of High that doing so would perform various tasks without human intervention [0002].
As to claims 5 and 14, Fields in view of Whitman in view of High teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as discussed above. Fields further teaches, wherein the real-time parameter includes one or more of geographical location, elapsed time at the site, or elapsed transit time to or from the site (“tracking the package at a plurality of locations [i.e., geographical locations] in a supply chain using tag readers in electronic communication with a central tag information system to create tracking information in a database that includes time and location information associated with the reading of the tag by the readers” and “… The detection of the product in an unexpected location can trigger an alarm that may result in email being sent to a supervisor to seek directions, or automatic actions may be taken to resolve the problem …” [0020 and 0057-0058]).
As to claims 6 and 15, Fields in view of Whitman in view of High teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as discussed above. Fields further teaches, wherein the automated action comprises sending an alert based on the callout (“… Some paths, for example, may be known to be the result of problems requiring action (e.g., theft, an equipment malfunction, improper training of a new employee, etc.). When such a path is encountered, an alert may be generated to call for corrective action or to automatically initiate corrective action or an investigation into the possible problem …” and “… Alternatively, or in addition, the evaluation may issue an alert at 422 …” [0060 and 0075-0076]).
As to claims 9 and 18, Fields in view of Whitman in view of High teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as discussed above. Fields further teaches, wherein the connected product includes a carton, tote, or crate containing additional items (“The paths that boxes, pallets, or individual items take through the supply chain can be tracked and analyzed with the system of the present invention …” and “… For example, the improvement may include modification of physical handling processes for the objects associated with tags (boxes, carton, crates, pallets, etc.), such as reducing impact, scraping, bumping, stacking height, or other factors that might damage containers or tags” [0056 and 0085]).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0208887 to Fields et al. (Fields) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0081867 to Whitman et al. (Whitman) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0215544 to High et al. (High), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0279294 to Field-Darragh et al. (Fields).
As to claims 7 and 16, Fields in view of Whitman in view of High teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as discussed above. While Fields [0084] teaches ranking system components based on the number of callouts, Fields in view of Whitman in view of High does not teach, ranking the first location against a second location based on the number of callouts created at each location. However, Field-Darragh teaches, ranking the first location against a second location based on the number of callouts created at each location (“… Then rank home locations by each of the values above in occurrences per item. Provide this information to buyers, merchandisers, salespeople, etc. to assist with the planning of merchandise display, etc.” [0254-0261]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, ranking the first location against a second location based on the number of callouts created at each location, as taught by Field-Darragh with the supply chain event tracking of Fields in view of Whitman in view of High. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Field-Darragh that doing so would improve order fulfillment and inventory management functions [0001].
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights