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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 & 8/5/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication unit, receiving unit, a storage unit, information processing unit, output unit, in claims 1-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. ( see Fig.1 and 3).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9 are directed to a device (i.e., a machine) and Claims 10 is directed to a program (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-10 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 and 10 substantially recites communicating with a production facility that produces an airplane tire and a client facility that is a client for the airplane tire produced in the production facility; receiving status information that includes identification information of the airplane tire, and position information or a delivery status of the airplane tire; storing the received identification information and the position information or the delivery status; updating the stored status information in a case in which the status information is received; and outputting the identification information and the status information.
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 10 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent).
The independent claims recite the additional elements of: (i) airplane tire management device, communication unit, receiving unit, storage unit, information processing unit, output unit, an airplane tire management program causing a computer to execute processing, are recited at a high-level of generality (See specification: [0008] the airplane tire management system 10 according to the embodiment includes a server 20, a production facility 30, a client facility (Maintenance Repair Overhaul (MRO)) 40, and a client facility (airline) 50 [0023] As illustrated in Fig. 3, in the server 20 of the embodiment, the CPU 20A executes the processing program 100 to function as a receiving unit 200, an information processing unit 210, and an output unit 220. [0013] The server 20 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 20A, a read only memory (ROM) 20B, a random-access memory (RAM) 20C, a storage 20D, an input/output interface (I/F) 20E, and a communication unit 20F. The CPU 20A, the ROM 20B, the RAM 20C, the storage 20D, the input/output I/F 20E, and the communication unit 20F are communicably connected to each other through a bus 20G)), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination ( as shown in Fig. 1) , do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”, which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: (i) airplane tire management device, communication unit, receiving unit, storage unit, information processing unit, output unit, an airplane tire management program causing a computer to execute processing, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea (e.g., using computers to communicate data).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Ishiyama (US20200364651A1)
As per Claim 1, Ishiyama teaches:
An airplane tire management device, comprising: a communication unit that is able to communicate with a production facility that produces an airplane tire and a client facility that is a client for the airplane tire produced by the production facility;( see at least: Fig. 1. [0025] the aircraft tire management system includes a tire manufacturer 10 [production facility], a company 20 providing MRO service [client facility], an airline 30, and a management device 40 [communication unit 41][0026] The tire manufacturer 10, the MRO-providing company 20, and the airline 30 each communicate with the management device 40 through a network [0031]) .
a receiving unit that receives, via the communication unit, identification information of the airplane tire and status information that includes position information or a delivery status of the airplane tire; ( see at least: [0042] In step S107, the management device 40 receives the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information sent in the step S105. The management device 40 prepares tire management information including the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information, as shown in FIG. 4, and displays the prepared tire management information on the display 44.[0043] In step S119, the operator 90 in the tire manufacturer 10 sends the acquired tire ID, location information, and date and time information to the management device 40 with the mobile terminal 50. [0030] The mobile terminals 50, 51, and 52 can also acquire information on the location where the tire IDs or the wheel IDs are acquired, by a GPS, for example. [ status] [0085] the management device 40 may manage manufacture information, retreading information, and delivery and shipping information of each aircraft tire 60)
a storage unit that stores the identification information and the status information received by the receiving unit; ( see at least: [0031] The storage device 43 stores the information processed by the information processing unit 42 [0044] In step S121, the management device 40 receives the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information sent in step S119. The management device 40 prepares the tire management information including the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information sent in step S119, as indicated in item No. 9 in FIG. 4. Since the tire ID sent in step S119 is the second sent tire ID in the warehouse 12, the management device 40 can make an annotation indicating “shipped to the MRO-providing company” in the reference column)
an information processing unit that updates the status information stored in the storage unit in a case in which the receiving unit receives the status information; ( see at least;[ 0044] In step S121, the management device 40 receives the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information sent in step S119. The management device 40 prepares the tire management information including the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information sent in step S119, as indicated in item No. 9 in FIG. 4. Since the tire ID sent in step S119 is the second sent tire ID in the warehouse 12, the management device 40 can make an annotation indicating “shipped to the MRO-providing company” in the reference column [updated status] [0053][0057])
and an output unit that is able to output the identification information and the status information. ( see at least: [0057] The management device 40 then prepares the tire management information including the wheel ID, the location information, and the date and time information sent in the step S153, as indicated in item No. 12 in. FIG. 4. Since the information sent in step S153 is the third sent information in the MRO-providing company 20, the management device 40 can display an annotation indicating “shipped to the airline” in the reference column. The operator 90 in the tire manufacturer 10 thus can visually and immediately recognize that the wheel-equipped tire 80 is being shipped to the airline 30 [0042]).
As per Claim 9, Ishiyama teaches claim 1 as above. Ishiyama further teaches:
the receiving unit receives information regarding a shipping date/time of the airplane tire for collection from the client facility, and the output unit is able to output the information regarding the shipping date/time to the production facility. ( see at least: [0043-44] In step S117, the operator 90 in the tire manufacturer 10 acquires the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information via the mobile terminal 50 when shipping the aircraft tire 60 to the MRO-providing company 20.[ client facility] [0055-56] the operator 91 in the MRO-providing company 20 [client facility] acquires the wheel ID, the location information, and the date and time information via the mobile terminal 51 when shipping the wheel-equipped tire 80 to the airline 30 [0082]).
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1, therefore its rejected over the same rationales.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 2, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama (US20200364651A1) in view of Aldstadt (US 20040249652 A1)
As per Claim 2, Ishiyama teaches claim 1 as above. Ishiyama further teaches:
the information processing unit sets a delivery in association with one or more pieces of the identification information acquired in the production facility or the client facility which dispatches the airplane tire, ( see at least: [0043] In step S117, the operator 90 in the tire manufacturer 10 acquires the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information via the mobile terminal 50 when shipping the aircraft tire 60 to the MRO-providing company 20 [0027] The identification information on the respective aircraft tires 60 described below can be referred to simply as a “tire ID”. [0040-42][0044] Since the tire ID sent in step S119 is the second sent tire ID in the warehouse 12, the management device 40 can make an annotation indicating “shipped to the MRO-providing company” in the reference column [0090]method of acquiring various kinds of information on the aircraft tires 60 including the tire IDs via the mobile terminals 50, 51, and 52)
verifies whether or not the delivery is acquired in the production facility or the client facility which receives the airplane tire, ( see at least: [0045] In step S109, the management device 40 determines whether the period from which the tire ID is received in step S107 to which the same tire ID is received next exceeds a predetermined period) and the output unit is able to output a result of the verification. ( see at least:[0046] In a case in which the unshipped period of the tire T101 in the warehouse 12 shown in FIG. 4 is 12 days, the management device 40 displays a warning on the display 44)
Ishiyama does not explicitly teach sets a delivery ID in association with one or more pieces of the identification information, verifies whether or not the delivery ID is acquired and output a result of the verification. However, this is taught by Aldstadt ( see at least: [0059]The ASN data may include shipment identification, items identification 1114, [0056] when the shipment arrives at a shipping company's facility with a shipment identification barcode on a form accompany the shipment, for example, the shipping company may scan the shipment identification barcode and use the information in the ASN file to link the shipment with a customer before processing an individual item in the shipment. [0005])
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the delivery ID and verification feature for the same reasons its useful in Aldstadt -namely, providing tracking information for an item being shipped ( par.5). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per Claim 7, Ishiyama in view of Aldstadt teaches claim 2 as above. Ishiyama further teaches:
the receiving unit receives the identification information of the airplane tire for collection from the client facility, and the information processing unit sets the delivery in association with one or more pieces of the identification information of the airplane tire for collection received by the receiving unit. ( see at least: [0071] In step S203, the operator 91 in the MRO-providing company 20 acquires the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information of the worn aircraft tire 60 via the mobile terminal 51 [0074-75] The operator 90 in the tire manufacturer 10 thus can visually and immediately recognize that the worn aircraft tire 60 is being returned to the plant 11)
Ishiyama does not explicitly teach sets the delivery ID in association with one or more pieces of the identification information of the item. However, this is taught by Aldstadt ( see at least: [0059]The ASN data may include shipment identification, items identification 1114, [0056] when the shipment arrives at a shipping company's facility with a shipment identification barcode on a form accompany the shipment, for example, the shipping company may scan the shipment identification barcode and use the information in the ASN file to link the shipment with a customer before processing an individual item in the shipment. [0005])
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the delivery ID associated with the item information feature for the same reasons its useful in Aldstadt -namely, providing tracking information for an item being shipped ( par.5). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per Claim 8, Ishiyama in view of Aldstadt teaches claim 7 as above. Ishiyama further teaches:
wherein the receiving unit receives, from the client facility, consumption information of the airplane tire in association with the identification information of the airplane tire for collection. ( see at least: [0071] In step S203, the operator 91 in the MRO-providing company 20 acquires the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information of the worn aircraft tire 60 via the mobile terminal 51. In step S205, the operator 91 in the MRO-providing company 20 sends the acquired tire ID, location information, and date and time information to the management device 40 with the mobile terminal 51 [0087-88] the management device 40 may count the number of used days of the tires mounted on the aircraft so as to manage the conditions of the tires depending on the number of used days. [consumption information]. The management device 40 then counts the number of days having passed since the tire T102 [ tire ID] was mounted on the aircraft, and inputs the number of days counted)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama (US20200364651A1) in view of Aldstadt (US 20040249652 A1) in further view of Mangan (US 20060238334 A1)
As per Claim 3, Ishiyama in view of Aldstadt teaches claim 2 as above. Ishiyama further teaches:
the identification information in which the delivery is set is acquired in the production facility or the client facility which has received the airplane tire( see at least: [0008] The acquisition device sends, to the management device, the tire individual information or the wheel individual information acquired when each aircraft tire is delivered from the tire manufacturing facility to the MRO-providing facility, when the aircraft tire is shipped from the MRO-providing facility to the airline facility, when the aircraft tire is delivered to the airline facility from the MRO-providing facility, and when the airline tire is shipped from the airline facility to the MRO-providing facility. [0045])
Ishiyama does not explicitly teach wherein, in a case in which at least a part of the identification information in which the same delivery ID is set is not acquired in the production facility or the client facility which has received the item, the information processing unit specifies the item of the identification information that is not acquired. However, this is taught by Mangan ( see at least: Fig.4, Fig.8Q missing package [0022] Each package is linked to each pickup stop via the location code and customer ID or contract ID. Each pickup stop is intelligently linked to one or more delivery stops and each delivery stop is linked to one or more pickup stops. [0027] As shown in FIG. 4, if he scans a package that is not expected at the current location, or if he fails to scan an expected package, the mobile unit is programmed to trigger an alarm and not to proceed with the transaction, unless the driver finds the right packages [0041] After the driver has scanned out all packages at the location and there is one or more package missing from the delivery batch, a message screen appears with the missing package number(s), as shown in FIG. 8Q. It is possible that the driver simply missed scanning the listed package. If the driver is not able to locate the missing package, the driver must inform an IndeliTrak administrator or dispatcher.)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the delivery ID and missing package feature by comparing expected package identifiers associated with a delivery against scanned package identifiers to identify the specific package identifier that is missing for the same reasons its useful in Mangan-namely, this linkage is necessary to ensure that packages are delivered to the correct location ( par.22). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama (US20200364651A1) in view of Oh ( US20210039885A1)
As per Claim 4, Ishiyama teaches claim 1 as above. Ishiyama further teaches:
the receiving unit receives the identification information acquired in the client facility on an assumption that the airplane tire ( see at least: [0048] In step S127, the operator 91 in the MRO-providing company 20 acquires the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information of the aircraft tire 60 via the mobile terminal 51 when receiving the aircraft tire 60, In step S129, the operator 91 in the MRO-providing company 20 then sends the acquired tire ID, location information, and date and time information to the management device 40 with the mobile terminal 51) and the information processing unit updates the status information of the identification information received by the receiving unit. ( see at least:[0049] Since the tire ID sent in step S129 is the first sent tire ID in the MRO-providing company 20, the management device 40 can display an annotation indicating “delivered from the warehouse” in the reference column. The operator 90 in the tire manufacturer 10 thus can visually and immediately recognize that the aircraft tire 60 was delivered to the MRO-providing company 20.)
Ishiyama does not explicitly teach receive information on an assumption that the item has a predetermined abnormality, status of the abnormal identification information, however, this is taught by Oh ( see at least: [0134] User 260, such as a worker, may indicate that the worker wants to report error using I/O device 520 of user device 119A-119C anytime during a picking operation. In some embodiments, mobile device 119B may display selectable options indicating particular errors. In some embodiments, errors to report may include, but not limited to, item shortage 842, barcode damage 844, item damaged 846, or any other reasons 848. When WMS 119 receives any error reports 840, it may communicate with other systems, such as FO system 113, in a fulfillment center to solve the reported issue).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the abnormal identification feature for the same reasons its useful in Oh -namely, to communicate with other systems in a fulfillment center to solve the reported issue ( par.134). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama (US20200364651A1) in view of Biazetti (US20210157947A1)
As per Claim 5, Ishiyama teaches claim 1 as above. Ishiyama further teaches:
the status information ( see at least: Fig .4 location, reference [0049])
Ishiyama does not explicitly teach in a case in which there is a predetermined setting, the information processing unit processes at least a part of the status information so that the client facility cannot browse the status information. However, this is taught by Biazetti ( see at least: [0045] to determine access rights that a given participant has on trade information (including milestones and documents), the system may determine the access control from the information about the role of the participant on the given shipment. During the runtime, various policy services enforce the permissions such that only the data that is allowed can be seen by each party. [0054] Based on this information, the services 134 may identify roles of each of the parties involved and dynamically assign access rights (e.g., to read and/or write data) to the documents and the event data of the multi-party transport process. The dynamically assigned access information as well as an identifier of the multi-party transport process, the events, and documents, and the parties, may be stored on the blockchain 136. [0053] the system may determine that an ocean carrier can upload a bill of lading document of a shipment, but an inland transporter (e.g., trucker) cannot have access to this document.)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the predetermined setting feature for the same reasons its useful in Biazetti -namely, dynamically assign access rights (e.g., to read and/or write data) to the documents and the event data of the multi-party transport process. ( par.54). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama (US20200364651A1) in view of Shirley ( US20040034554A1)
As per Claim 6, Ishiyama teaches claim 1 as above. Ishiyama further teaches:
the receiving unit receives data of the airplane tire from the production facility or the client facility in association with the identification information, and the output unit is able to output the data ( see at least: [0044] In step S121, the management device 40 receives the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information sent in step S119. The management device 40 prepares the tire management information including the tire ID, the location information, and the date and time information sent in step S119, as indicated in item No. 9 in FIG. 4. Since the tire ID sent in step S119 is the second sent tire ID in the warehouse 12, the management device 40 can make an annotation indicating “shipped to the MRO-providing company” in the reference column)
Ishiyama does not explicitly teach receives predetermined certification data and output the data at a predetermined timing. However, this is taught by Shirley (See at least: [0015] (b) Provide the basis which enables the Manufacturing Inspector or designee to accept an FAA Form 8130-9, Statement of Conformity prior to turnover of the aircraft to Flight Test as required by FAR 21.33(a)(1) and 21.35(a)(3); [0041] facilitating regulatory certification of an aircraft system. The invention provides automated completion and submission of all the designee forms, including: 8110-1 Test Inspection Authorizations (TIA); 8100-1 Conformity Inspection Records; 8130-9 Statements of Conformity; and 8130-3 Airworthiness Approval Tags [0042] the performed certification activity is received from the assigned party. The performed certification activity is complied into a report, and an interactive display of the compiled report is generated for review.)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the certification feature for the same reasons its useful in Shirley-namely, to verify that an aircraft component or modification conforms to the data submitted to the FAA, and that the product being certificated complies with the Type design ( par.32). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANAL A. ALSAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MANAL A. ALSAMIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights