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
Applicant claims priority to 371 of international Application No. PCTIB2023000141, filed 4/19/2023 which claims priority to CN Application No. 202210422805.X, filed 4/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 10/19/2024 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 10/19/2024, have been entered. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/858,311 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of the present application are anticipated by claims 1-16 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 10-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “in the case of a significant deviation” in line 5. The term “a significant deviation” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a significant deviation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitation to read as any deviation. Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and inherits the rejections of claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “replacing in the method according to any one of the preceding claims the set of measured values by the set of corrected values” in lines 10-11. The metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear inasmuch as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement of this claim because they are not appraised of the scope of the limitation. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitation to read as replacing the set of measured values with the set of corrected values as described in paragraph [0042] of the Specification. 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim limitation recites "a computer program.” However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase "a computer program" includes both "non-transitory" and "transitory" (carrier wave, for example) media. Such media has been held to be ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The specification does not clearly limit the utilization of a non-transitory computer program, thus, with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the computer program covers a signal per se, which is non-statutory. See MPEP 2106.03(II). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, claim 14 is non-statutory.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-12, are directed to a process, the system, as claimed in claims 13 and 15 (see MPEP 2106.03). As noted above, claim 14 is non-statutory. However, for compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 14 as if it were statutory for the 2A and 2B 101 analysis.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
A method for assessing spinning mills (2) producing yarn packages (93), comprising the steps of:
receiving from a spinning mill (2) having produced a yarn package (93) a set of measured values for at least one yarn-quality parameter measured for yarn (92) on the yarn package (93);
assigning to the set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2);
storing the set of measured values together with the assigned mill identifier;
repeating the preceding steps for at least one other spinning mill (2);
producing a ranking of the spinning mills (2) according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them; and
transmitting the ranking.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because ranking spinning mills according to sets of measured values is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations (see also Specification ¶0007 and ¶0027). Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 13-15 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 13-15 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer-implemented method for assessing spinning mills (2) producing yarn packages (93) on yarn-winding machines (3), comprising the steps of:
receiving by a server computer system (1) via a global communication network (6) from a spinning mill (2) having produced a yarn package (93) on a yarn- winding machine (3) a set of measured values for at least one yarn-quality parameter measured for yarn (92) on the yarn package (93) by at least one sensor (41) on the yarn-winding machine (3);
assigning by the server computer system (1) to the set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2);
storing in a database (12) on the server computer system (1) the set of measured values together with the assigned mill identifier;
repeating the preceding steps for at least one other spinning mill (2);
producing by the server computer system (1) a ranking of the spinning mills (2) according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them; and
transmitting the ranking from the server computer system (1) via a global communication network (7) to a client computer (8).
In this case, claim 13 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A server computer system (1) comprising means for carrying out the method according to claim 1.
In this case, claim 14 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer program having instructions which when executed by a server computer system (1) cause the server computer system (1) to perform the method according to claim 1.
In this case, claim 15 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A server computer system (1) for assessing spinning mills (2) producing yarn packages (93) on yarn-winding machines (3), comprising:
a receiver (11) for receiving via a global communication network (6) from at least two spinning mills (2) having produced yarn packages (93) on yarn winding machines (3) sets of measured values for at least one yarn-quality parameter measured for yarn (92) on each of the yarn packages (93) by at least one sensor (41) on the respective yarn-winding machine (3);
a processor configured to assign to each set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2);
a memory for storing in a database (12) the sets of measured values together with the assigned mill identifiers;
a processor configured to produce a ranking of the at least two spinning mills (2) according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them; and
a transmitter for transmitting the ranking via a global communication network (7) to a client computer (8).
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“computer-implemented”, “by a server computer system (1) via a global communication network (6)”, “in a database (12) on the server computer system (1)“, “to a client computer (8)”, “yarn-winding machines”, “computer program having instructions which when executed by a server computer system”, “a receiver (11)”, “a processor”, “a memory”, and “a transmitter”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, storing information, transmitting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1 and 13-15 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 the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0024]-[0025], [0032]-[0035]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer and generic yarn-winding machines (see ¶0024 [describing “typical” stand-alone winding machines and are “any machine” in a spinning mill that winds yarn onto a yarn package larger than a cop] and ¶¶0034-0035 [describing the “typical” winding machines as having a sensor for monitoring properties of the yarn]). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving, storing, and transmitting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1 and 13-15 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
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 representative claims 1 and 13-15, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1 and 13-15 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, 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 of claims 1 and 13-15 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 or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Additionally, the Specification recites yarn-winding machines that winds yarn onto a yarn package with sensors for monitoring properties of the yarn are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (Fig. 1; see ¶0024 [describing “typical” stand-alone winding machines and are “any machine” in a spinning mill that winds yarn onto a yarn package larger than a cop] and ¶¶0034-0035 [describing the “typical” winding machines as having a sensor for monitoring properties of the yarn]).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1 and 13-15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1 and 13-15 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-12
Dependent claim(s) 2-12, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-12 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1.
Claims 2-12 set forth:
wherein the set of measured values is for at least one parameter from the following set: coefficient of variation of the yarn mass, coefficient of variation of the yarn diameter, hairiness, number of thick places, number of thin places, number of periodic yarn defects, number of yarn count variations, number of foreign matters, number of splices.
further comprising the steps of: receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (6) from the spinning mill (2) further information on the yarn package (93);assigning by the server computer system (1) to the further information the mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2); and storing in the database (12) the further information together with the assigned mill identifier.
wherein the further information is from the following set: yarn count, yarn material, fiber processing system, spinning system, envisaged application, amount of yarn packages available, temporal availability of the yarn package, price of the yarn package.
further comprising the steps of: assigning by the server computer system (1) to the received set of measured values a package identifier for the respective yarn package (93); and storing in the database (12) the package identifier together with the set of measured values and the mill identifier.
further comprising the steps of: receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (7) from the client computer (8) a purchase request (71) containing yarn specifications; retrieving from the database (12), using the package identifiers and the mill identifiers, sets of yarn packages such that the further information matches the yarn specifications for all packages of each of the retrieved sets of yarn packages; and producing by the server computer system (1) the ranking only of those spinning mills (2) that produced the retrieved sets of yarn packages.
wherein the ranking is produced based on all sets of measured values stored in the database (12), based on a certain number of most recent sets of measured values, or based on most recent sets of measured values measured in a certain period.
wherein the ranking is produced on an ordinal scale or on a metric scale.
wherein the ranking is in the form of measured values assigned to the spinning mills (2), in the form of quantiles or percentiles assigned to the spinning mills (2), in the form of ordinal numbers assigned to the spinning mills (2), and/or in the form of classes into which the spinning mills (2) are classified.
wherein, before storing the set of measured values in the database (12), the set of measured values is compared by the server computer system (1) with sets of measured values having the same assigned mill identifier, and in case of a significant deviation, the set of measured values is marked as an outlier and is not considered in the ranking.
wherein upon occurrence of an outlier, an outlier message identifying the outlier is transmitted from the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (6) to the respective spinning mill (2).
further comprising the steps of: receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network from the spinning mill (2) values of at least one ambient parameter characteristic for an ambient condition of a location and a time of winding the yarn package (93); correcting by the server computer system (1) the received set of measured values to predefined ambient conditions based on the received value of the at least one ambient parameter, thus generating a set of corrected values; and replacing the set of measured values with the set of corrected values.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of ranking spinning mills according to sets of measured values. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-12 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan (WO 2014/172796 A1) in view of O’Keeffe et al. (US 2019/0043071 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Narayanan discloses a computer-implemented method for assessing spinning mills (2) producing yarn packages (93) on yarn-winding machines (3) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, lines 9-30), comprising the steps of:
receiving by a server computer system (1) via a global communication network (6) from a spinning mill (2) having produced a yarn package (93) on a yarn- winding machine (3) a set of measured values for at least one yarn-quality parameter measured for yarn (92) on the yarn package (93) by at least one sensor (41) on the yarn-winding machine (3) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, lines 9-30);
assigning by the server computer system (1) to the set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2) (Figs. 1-2; page 10, lines 15-25);
storing in a database (12) on the server computer system (1) the set of measured values together with the assigned mill identifier (Figs. 1-2; page 10, lines 15-25);
repeating the preceding steps for at least one other spinning mill (2) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 15);
producing by the server computer system (1) a benchmark of the spinning mills (2) according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them (Figs. 1-2; page 11, lines 15-25); and
transmitting the a benchmark from the server computer system (1) via a global communication network (7) to a client computer (8) (Figs. 1-2; page 11, lines 15-25).
While Narayanan discloses producing and transmitting a benchmark (Figs. 1-2; page 11, lines 15-25), Narayanan does not explicitly disclose producing and transmitting a ranking of the spinning mills. In the field of identifying sellers for a product (abstract) O’Keeffe et al., hereinafter O’Keeffe teaches producing a ranking of sellers of a product and transmitting the ranking (Fig. 2; ¶¶0056-0058). The step of O’Keeffe is applicable to the method of Narayanan as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing information about products for sale. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the benchmark of Narayanan to include the ranking of O’Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Narayanan in order to optimize the matching of users to sellers based on the likelihood of the user purchasing the product (¶0002).
Regarding claim 2, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, Narayanan further discloses wherein the set of measured values is for at least one parameter from the following set: coefficient of variation of the yarn mass, coefficient of variation of the yarn diameter, hairiness, number of thick places, number of thin places, number of periodic yarn defects, number of yarn count variations, number of foreign matters, number of splices (Fig. 4; page 12, lines 17-29 and claim 5).
Regarding claim 3, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, Narayanan further discloses further comprising the steps of:
receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (6) from the spinning mill (2) further information on the yarn package (93) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31 and claims 11-12);
assigning by the server computer system (1) to the further information the mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31 and claims 11-12); and
storing in the database (12) the further information together with the assigned mill identifier (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31 and claims 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 3, Narayanan further discloses wherein the further information is from the following set: yarn count, yarn material, fiber processing system, spinning system, envisaged application, amount of yarn packages available, temporal availability of the yarn package, price of the yarn package (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31 and claims 11-12).
Regarding claim 5, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, Narayanan further discloses further comprising the steps of:
assigning by the server computer system (1) to the received set of measured values a package identifier for the respective yarn package (93) (Fig. 4; page 12, line 18 to page 14, line 24); and
storing in the database (12) the package identifier together with the set of measured values and the mill identifier (Fig. 4; page 12, line 18 to page 14, line 24).
Regarding claim 6, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 5, Narayanan further discloses further comprising the steps of:
receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (7) from the client computer (8) a request (71) containing yarn specifications (Figs. 1-4; page 11, line 15 to page 14, line 25);
retrieving from the database (12), using the package identifiers and the mill identifiers sets of yarn packages such that the further information matches the yarn specifications for all packages of each of the retrieved sets of yarn packages (Figs. 1-4; page 11, line 15 to page 14, line 25); and
producing by the server computer system (1) those spinning mills (2) that produced the retrieved sets of yarn packages (Figs. 1-4; page 11, line 15 to page 14, line 25).
While Narayanan discloses receiving a request, retrieving information from the database that matches the request, and producing the spinning mills that matched (Figs. 1-4; page 11, line 15 to page 14, line 25), Narayanan does not explicitly disclose receiving a purchase request and producing the ranking only of the sellers that produced the request specifications. However, O’Keeffe further teaches receiving a search request and ranking only sellers that produced the request specifications (Fig. 2; ¶¶0056-0058 in view of ¶¶0016-0017). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, O’Keeffe further teaches wherein the ranking is produced based on all sets of measured values stored in the database (12), based on a certain number of most recent sets of measured values, or based on most recent sets of measured values measured in a certain period (¶¶0056-0098 in view of ¶¶0016-0017). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, O’Keeffe further teaches wherein the ranking is produced on an ordinal scale or on a metric scale (Fig. 2; ¶0009 [a ranked list of candidate vendors sorted by the probability that a particular dealer will consummate a transaction with the consumer and (b) suppress presentation of those dealers that are unlikely to be selected by the consumer since their characteristics are less consistent with those needed by the consumer and, therefore, are unlikely to result in a sale] in view of ¶¶0016-0017). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, O’Keeffe further teaches wherein the ranking is in the form of measured values assigned to the spinning mills (2), in the form of quantiles or percentiles assigned to the spinning mills (2), in the form of ordinal numbers assigned to the spinning mills (2), and/or in the form of classes into which the spinning mills (2) are classified (Fig. 2; ¶¶0026-0032 and ¶¶0061-0067 in view of ¶¶0016-0017; Examiner notes dealers are comparable to spinning mills). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, Narayanan further discloses further comprising the steps of:
receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network from the spinning mill (2) values of at least one ambient parameter characteristic for an ambient condition of a location and a time of winding the yarn package (93) (Figs. 1-2; page 10, lines 15-24);
correcting by the server computer system (1) the received set of measured values to predefined ambient conditions based on the received value of the at least one ambient parameter, thus generating a set of corrected values (Figs. 1-2; page 10, line 15 to page 11, line 14); and
replacing the set of measured values with the set of corrected values (Figs. 1-2; page 10, line 15 to page 11, line 14).
Regarding claims 13-15, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 1, except claim 1 is directed to a process while claims 13 and 15 are directed to a machine and claim 14 is directed to an article of manufacture. The added elements of “a computer program having instructions executed by a server”, “a receiver”, “a processor”, “memory”, and a “transmitter” are also taught by Narayanan (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31, claims 15, 18-21). Therefore, claims 13-15 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe and Hockett (US 2019/0354915 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1. While Narayanan further discloses the set of measured values is compared by the server computer system (1) with sets of measured values (page 13, lines 11-21), Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe does not explicitly teach the set of measured values is compared by the server computer system (1) with sets of measured value having the same assigned mill identifier before storing the set of measured values in the database (12), and in case of a significant deviation, the set of measured values is marked as an outlier and is not considered in the ranking. In the field of inspection data of manufactured physical parts (abstract) Hockett teaches analyzing data associated with a particular machine and in the case of a significant deviation the measured values are marked as an outlier and not considered in the normal data set (Fig. 6; ¶¶0144-0156). The step of Hockett is applicable to the method of Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing information about manufactured products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the process of Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe to include the outlier detection of Hockett. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe in order to provide an alert that the machine requires recalibration and/or that operation of the machine should be halted (¶0153).
Regarding claim 11, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe and Hockett teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 10, Hockett further teaches wherein upon occurrence of an outlier, an outlier message identifying the outlier is transmitted from the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (6) to the respective spinning mill (2) (Fig. 6; ¶¶0144-0156). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 10.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited Non Patent Literature “The Ultimate Acrylic Yarn Comparison: Results” discloses ranking yarn manufactures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688