DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 4/14/2019.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,102 in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2009/0018882 Burton et al. (“Burton”).
18/943,282
12,165,102
1. An anomaly detection system, comprising:
1. An anomaly detection system, comprising:
a supply chain network comprising two or more supply chain entities; and
a supply chain network comprising two or more supply chain entities; and
a computer coupled with a database and comprising a processor and memory, the computer configured to locate and correct one or more data anomalies in supply chain data by:
a computer coupled with a database and comprising a processor and memory, the computer configured to locate and correct one or more data anomalies in supply chain data by:
receiving
receiving supply chain data comprising a plurality of data points, wherein the supply chain data is based at least in part on data received from one or more transportation vehicles and wherein the received data identifies a corresponding one or more locations of the one or more transportation vehicles and a location of any inventory or shipment on the one or more transportation vehicles;
selecting categories and measures by which to cluster the supply chain data;
selecting categories and measures by which to cluster the supply chain data;
clustering the plurality of data points into intersection clusters as measured by the selected categories and measures by:
clustering the data points into intersection clusters as measured by the selected categories and measures by:
generating optimal K-values for the plurality of data points in relation to a number of time interval clusters, wherein each optimal K-value defines a locality parameter;
generating optimal K-values for the plurality of data points in relation to a number of time interval clusters, wherein each optimal K-value defines a locality parameter;
generating local outlier factors for the plurality of data points using the optimal K-values, wherein each local outlier factor is based, at least in part, on a corresponding locality parameter; and
generating local outlier factors for the plurality of data points using the optimal K-values, wherein each local outlier factor is based, at least in part, on a corresponding locality parameter; and
ranking the local outlier factors in descending order of magnitude; and
ranking the local outlier factors in descending order of magnitude;
correcting a supply chain plan based on at least one detected anomaly associated with the ranked local outlier factors,
correcting a supply chain plan based on at least one detected anomaly associated with the ranked local outlier factors; and instructing an automated distribution system to automatically transport one or more products based on the corrected supply chain plan.
‘102 differs in the source of the data being manual input data and the anomaly to come from the manual entry.However, Burton teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data analysis art to include data being manual input data and the anomaly to come from the manual entry (See [0018] discussing the use of manual entry data in the system and [0006] discussing manual data collection causing errors.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the data analysis art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of ‘102 to include data being manual input data and the anomaly to come from the manual entry, as disclosed by Burton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to supplement sensor data (Burton [0018]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-7 are processes (methods), and claims 8-20 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. An anomaly detection system, comprising:
a supply chain network comprising two or more supply chain entities; and
a computer coupled with a database and comprising a processor and memory, the computer configured to locate and correct one or more data anomalies in supply chain data by:
receiving a manual input of at least part of the supply chain data comprising a plurality of data points (observation), wherein the manual input is received by one or more supply chain planning and execution systems;
selecting categories and measures by which to cluster the supply chain data (judgment);
clustering the plurality of data points into intersection clusters as measured by the selected categories and measures by (evaluation, mathematical correlations):
generating optimal K-values for the plurality of data points in relation to a number of time interval clusters, wherein each optimal K-value defines a locality parameter (judgment, mathematical correlations);
generating local outlier factors for the plurality of data points using the optimal K-values, wherein each local outlier factor is based, at least in part, on a corresponding locality parameter (judgment, mathematical correlations); and
ranking the local outlier factors in descending order of magnitude (opinion, mathematical correlations) ; and
correcting a supply chain plan based on at least one detected anomaly associated with the ranked local outlier factors, wherein the at least one detected anomaly is caused by the manual input received by the one or more supply chain planning and execution systems (opinion, mathematical correlations).
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) is directed to a series of steps for locate and correct one or more data anomalies in supply chain data, which is a commercial/legal interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations) and/or mathematical concepts (see above notations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because computer, memory, processor, supply chain planning and execution systems, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. A supply chain network and supply chain entities are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular environment. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the computer, memory, processor, supply chain planning and execution systems, supply chain network, supply chain entities, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in generally linked environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. The nearest art, Woolsey 2015/0220874, Aki1, and Kerschbaum 8,015,080, does not teach the specific K-value method as disclosed by Applicant. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
1 A. Aki, D. K. M. Reddy, Y. K. Reddy, C.R. Kavitha and T. Sasikala, " Analyzing the real time electricity data using data mining techniques," 2017 International Conference On Smart Technologies For Smart Nation (SmartTechCon), 2017, pp. 545-549, doi: 10.1109/SmartTechCon.2017.8358431
Prosecution Insights