DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on December 10, 2024.
Claims 9-11 and 13-14 have been amended.
Claims 15-20 have been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1 and 13-14, the claims describe a method and system for monitoring and reporting data of items throughout a supply chain which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction). The limitations on obtaining data, analyzing data and providing visualization could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting a computer, nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. All the steps of “obtaining”, “analyzing” and “providing” recite functions directed to commercial interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claims modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's data analytics in the general field of supply chain and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the obtaining, analyzing and providing steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12 and 15-20, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Whitman (CA 3149155 A1).
Claim 1
Whitman discloses the following limitations:
A method comprising: obtaining data regarding items as the items move through a supply chain, wherein the data comprises event data that identifies specific ones of the items at specific locations in the supply chain at specific times; (see at least abstract and paragraph 0007-monitoring and reporting condition of items thought out a supply chain; product flow data regarding environment and/or equipment related data (ex: power usage of a cooler); mobile sensors that travel with their corresponding individual items of sale for a period of time).
analyzing the data to produce information while at least a portion of the items move through the supply chain; and (see at least paragraphs 0007-0008-determining flow analysis data in response to the product flow data).
providing a visualization of the information usable to identify one or more changes to make in at least one portion of the supply chain to improve the at least one portion of the supply chain. (see at least paragraph 0154-transmitting visualized flow data 3310 and generating a graphical user interface 3312).
Claim 2
Furthermore, Whitman discloses the following limitations:
further comprising identifying items by electronic fingerprints generated from captured images of marks on the items using computer image processing. (see at least paragraphs 0173-0176-barcode).
Claim 4
Furthermore, Whitman discloses the following limitations:
wherein the obtaining comprises: receiving serialization data for the items from computers located at production facilities, packaging facilities, distribution facilities, or a combination thereof; and (see at least paragraph 0117-global communication network).
receiving item authentication data and end-to-end item trace data from computers throughout the supply chain via a global communication network. (see at least paragraph 0117-global communication network).
Claim 5
Furthermore, Whitman discloses the following limitations:
wherein the analyzing comprises: analyzing data about the at least a portion of the items that are moving through the supply chain; and (see at least paragraph 0120-micro climate sensors; disposition history).
analyzing historical data about another portion of the items that have fully passed through the supply chain, which were discarded before fully passing through the supply chain, or both. (see at least paragraphs 0120 and 0234-0235-using AI for disposition analysis).
Claim 6
Furthermore, Whitman discloses the following limitations:
wherein the analyzing comprises producing the information comprising decommissioning information, serial number pool information, packaging line performance information, and packaging lot information. (see at least paragraphs 0120 and 0234-0235).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Whitman discloses the following limitations:
wherein the providing comprises sending distinct dashboards for displaying (i) decommissioning events for sites, products and packaging lines, (ii) serial number pool status and serial number allocations, (iii) packaging line utilization and performance, and (iv) packaging lot/batch details including settings, runtimes, events, counts and decommission reasons. (see at least paragraphs 0121-0123).
Claim 8
Furthermore, Whitman discloses the following limitations:
further comprising identifying trends and potential threats based on predetermined threshold values related to at least one of decommissioning information, serial number pool information, packaging line performance information, and packaging lot information. (see at least paragraphs 0121-0123).
Claim 10
Furthermore, Whitman discloses the following limitations:
wherein the providing comprises sending distinct sets of information about a specific item to two or more of a manufacturer, a packager, a distributor, a retailer, and an end consumer. (see at least paragraphs 0133 and 0120).
Claim 11
Furthermore, Whitman discloses the following limitations:
wherein the providing comprises generating an interactive, graphical view of an organization's sites, environments, data sources, machines, and site servers and packaging line systems. (see at least paragraphs 0121-0123).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (CA 3149155 A1) in view of Clark (US 8, 190, 279 B2).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Whitman discloses the following limitations:
wherein the data regarding items includes counts for commissioned and decommissioned items for a snapshot in time and/or associated with a segment in the supply chain, (see at least paragraph 0248-perishable goods; time to shelf-monitoring cold chain and shelf life).
Whitman does not explicitly discloses monitoring manufactured goods, however Clark which is analogous prior art does:
and wherein the counts are obtained from inspection data collected on a production line by sensors installed on the production line. (see at least column 3 lines 10-25 and column 4 lines 40-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Whitman and Clark. Monitoring perishable goods and monitoring manufactured goods merge in a straight forward manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration for consistency (Clark column 3 lines 25-45). Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 9
Whitman discloses a graphical user interface for flow visualization. Whitman does not explicitly disclose serialization, however Clark does:
wherein the providing comprises generating an interactive, graphical view for visualizing data related to a serialization number pool, wherein the serialization number pool represents serialization number inventory and the serialization number inventory is obtained from a government authority or a trading partner, (see at least column 3 lines 45-65, column 11 lines 55-65 and column 12 lines 10-30).
and the visualization includes serialization number pool visualization including counts data based on a site, manufacturer, product and package for allocated serialization numbers, used serialization numbers, available serialization numbers, decommissioned serialization numbers, serialization format, serialization numbers count threshold and a visual indicator for indicating whether the available serialization numbers are above or below the serialization numbers count threshold, wherein the serialization numbers count threshold is a predetermined value set by a customer. (see at least column 3 lines 45-65, column 11 lines 55-65 and column 12 lines 10-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Whitman and Clark. Monitoring perishable goods and monitoring manufactured goods merge in a straight forward manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration for consistency (Clark column 3 lines 25-45). Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 12
Whitman discloses a graphical user interface for data flow visualization. Whitman does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
wherein the interactive, graphical view includes representations of cameras, printers, barcode scanners, and sensors installed on a production line of the organization.
However, since Clark discloses a production line graphical view, the lacking limitation above is not explicitly disclose but would have been an obvious design choice when it comes to the layout of the graphical user interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Whitman and Clark. Monitoring perishable goods and monitoring manufactured goods merge in a straight forward manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration for consistency (Clark column 3 lines 25-45). Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
As per claims 13-20, claims 13-20 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-12 and are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights