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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 11/18/2024.
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 subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-7 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim (s) 8-14 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 15-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ selecting, by a computer comprising a processor and memory, one or more data tables from which to render and visualize supply chain data; selecting, by the computer, a display color scheme of a mixed reality cuboid visualization; generating, by the computer, the mixed reality cuboid visualization according to the one or more selected data tables to display one or more supply chain exceptions; displaying and manipulating, by the computer, the mixed reality cuboid visualization in response to one or more inputs received from a rendering device; altering, by the computer, one or more supply chain variables based on, at least in part, the one or more received inputs; and in response to the manipulating and the altering, repeating, by the computer, the generating and the displaying to incorporate the one or more altered supply chain variables ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “ a computer comprising a processor and memory”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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).
Rather, the limitations merely add 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)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “ a computer comprising a processor and memory” to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraph 22); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 8 and 15.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 1,8,15.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Easter et al, US Pub No : 2019/0197787 A1 in view of Tate-Gans et al, US Pub No: 2019/0197785 A1.
Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Easter discloses:
selecting, by a computer comprising a processor and memory, one or more data tables from which to render and visualize supply chain data ;
generating, by the computer, the mixed reality visualization according to the one or more selected data tables to display one or more supply chain exceptions;
See at least paragraph 27 (the backend server 302 retrieves the container information from the database 314. After retrieving the container information from the database 314 (if necessary), the backend server 302 transmits the container information to the control circuit 304. The control circuit 304 generates the augmented reality presentation and causes presentation of the augmented reality presentation via the display device 308);
displaying and manipulating, by the computer, the mixed reality visualization in response to one or more inputs received from a rendering device;
altering, by the computer, one or more supply chain variables based on, at least in part, the one or more received inputs; and in response to the manipulating and the altering, repeating, by the computer, the generating and the displaying to incorporate the one or more altered supply chain variables;
See at least paragraph 35 (the augmented reality presentation includes one or more menus. For example, the menus can allow the user to select and/or request additional container information and/or browse the container information. In such embodiments, the container information is selectable and navigable via the mobile device. Additionally, in some embodiments, the augmented reality presentation can include an indicia of the container, such as a visual identifier of the container);
Easter does not specifically disclose, but Tate-Gans however discloses:
selecting, by the computer, a display color scheme of a mixed reality cuboid visualization (paragraph 177 ( Prism state legend 860 discloses the various different Prism states of Prisms based on a color scheme) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Easter’s augmented reality systems and methods for supply chain with Tate-Gans teaching for managing and displaying mixed reality cuboid visualization with the motivation of providing an integrated virtual content and presentation of supply chain information[4] as taught by Tate-Gans over that of Easter.
Claims 2,9 and 16:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easer further disclose:
wherein the one or more displayed supply chain exceptions are determined by evaluating one or more of: one or more supply chain models, one or more supply chain network models, one or more supply chain planning problems, supply chain planning data, and one or more mixed-reality KPI cuboid visualizations (see at least paragraph 3 (Complete and organized data are essential to ensuring that products are delivered on time, and to the correct retailer); paragraph 12 (providing an augmented reality (AR) system. The AR system allows drivers, as well as other personnel, to quickly ascertain information about containers on a delivery vehicle. In some embodiments, the AR system works with a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) to identify containers and present, after retrieving if necessary, information about the containers. The discussion of FIG. 1 provides and overview of such a system);
Claims 3,10 and 17:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easer further disclose:
wherein the one or more received inputs comprise one or more of physical, visual, and voice input from the rendering device ( paragraph 12 (providing an augmented reality (AR) system. The AR system allows drivers, as well as other personnel, to quickly ascertain information about containers on a delivery vehicle. In some embodiments, the AR system works with a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) to identify containers and present, after retrieving if necessary, information about the containers. The discussion of FIG. 1 provides and overview of such a system);
Claims 4,11 and 18:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easer further disclose:
displaying, by the computer, the mixed reality visualization by overlaying one or more visual elements over a visual feed from a camera; and altering, by the computer, an appearance and placement of the visual elements based, at least in part, on a movement of objects within the visual feed of the camera ( see at least paragraph 11 (receive from the backend server, the container information for the one of the containers, and generate the augmented reality presentation, wherein the augmented reality presentation includes the container information for the one of the containers superimposed over the view of the containers, and wherein the container information for the one of the containers is selectable and navigable via the mobile device); paragraph 12 (providing an augmented reality (AR) system. The AR system allows drivers, as well as other personnel, to quickly ascertain information about containers on a delivery vehicle. In some embodiments, the AR system works with a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) to identify containers and present, after retrieving if necessary, information about the containers. The discussion of FIG. 1 provides and overview of such a system);
Easter does not specifically disclose, but Tate-Gans however discloses:
a display of a mixed reality cuboid visualization (paragraph 177 ( Prism state legend 860 discloses the various different Prism states of Prisms based on a color scheme) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Easter’s augmented reality systems and methods for supply chain with Tate-Gans teaching for managing and displaying mixed reality cuboid visualization with the motivation of providing an integrated virtual content and presentation of supply chain information[4] as taught by Tate-Gans over that of Easter.
Claims 5,12 and 19:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easter does not specifically disclose, but Tate-Gans however discloses:
wherein the mixed reality cuboid visualization comprises a rotatable three-dimensional cubical model comprised of smaller exception and non-exception cubelets ( see at least paragraph 332 (wherein the orientation defines how the Prism is rotated relative to an object); paragraph 333 (wherein the extent data defines a size of the Prism);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Easter’s augmented reality systems and methods for supply chain with Tate-Gans teaching for managing and displaying mixed reality cuboid visualization with the motivation of providing an integrated virtual content and presentation of supply chain information[4] as taught by Tate-Gans over that of Easter.
Claims 6,13 and 20:
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easter further discloses:
automatically generating, by the computer, one or more resolution options to address the one or more displayed supply chain exceptions (see at least paragraph 19 ( the mobile device 202 can make calls to the backend server to retrieve, on demand, any of the container information 208 not stored locally); paragraph 20 (the mobile device 202 can present an alert if a container is found on the delivery vehicle that should not be there. For example, if as the driver views the cargo area of the delivery vehicle via the mobile device 202, the mobile device determines that a container is present that should have already been delivered, or is not supposed to be included on the delivery vehicle, the mobile device 202 can present an alert to the driver via the display device 204. This alert can be generic (e.g., a notification indicating that there is a container present that should not be there) or specific to the container (e.g., a notification indicating that a specific container should have been delivered/unloaded at a previous stop). The mobile device 202 can make this determination based on container identifiers read while the driver views the cargo area via the mobile device 202. .
Claim 7 :
The combination of Easter/ Tate- Gans discloses the limitations as shown above.
Easter further discloses:
wherein the one or more displayed supply chain exceptions comprise one or more of: a supply chain event in which a supply chain component does not receive an expected input, a supply chain event in which a supply chain component does not generate an expected output and a supply chain event in which a planned quantity of material does not reach a planned destination in time (see at least paragraph 3 (Complete and organized data are essential to ensuring that products are delivered on time, and to the correct retailer); paragraph 12 (providing an augmented reality (AR) system. The AR system allows drivers, as well as other personnel, to quickly ascertain information about containers on a delivery vehicle. In some embodiments, the AR system works with a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) to identify containers and present, after retrieving if necessary, information about the containers. The discussion of FIG. 1 provides and overview of such a system);
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Schwartz, US Pub No: 2009/0138375 A1 teaches virtual web store with product images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622