DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0168117, filed on 11/28/2023.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action.
Claims 1-7 are currently considered. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 6 each recites the limitation "the tracking device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 6 each recites "inputting the event information into a separate platform or app ", it is unclear what “app” stands for, which render the claims indefinite. Examiner notes that the first instant of abbreviation, in this case "app", should be accompanied with the full phrase, "application", to establish an acceptable meaning and antecedent basis.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-3), method (claims 4-6), and a computer program (claim 7) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea of tracking and documenting supply chain events and transaction, which within “certain methods of organizing human activity” including commercial interaction/business relations. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: An electronic identification code scanner comprising: a memory configured to store logistics environment information in advance; a GPS module configured to receive GPS information; a scan sensor configured to scan an electronic identification code; a processor configured to identify event information corresponding to the scanned electronic identification code and convert the event information into a predetermined standardized format for supply chain transaction information, the standardized format including object information, time information, location information and purpose information; and a communication module configured to transmit the event information having the standardized format, wherein the logistics environment information includes an event type (EPCIS EVENT TYPE) indicating a change in a specific variable or state, a business step (EPCIS Biz-Step) indicating a specific step or state in a business process, and a location period indicating a period of time during which a product stays at a specific location, and wherein the processor is configured to obtain the object information from the identified event information, obtain the time information and the location information from the GPS information, and generate an event indicating a change in a variable from a Core Business Vocabulary (CBV), based on the business step whenever a value of the variable changes according to a predetermined condition, using the business step indicating the specific step or state in the business process among the logistics environment information to obtain the purpose information indicating at which business step in the business process the value of the variable has changed for the generated event.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to an electronic identification code scanner comprising: a memory configured to store logistics environment information in advance; a GPS module configured to receive GPS information(recited at high level of generality as means to gather information); a scan sensor configured to scan an electronic identification code (recited at high level amounts to data gathering means); a communication module configured to transmit the event information, a processor, a communication module configured to transmit the event information, the processor is configured to obtain the object information, and a computer program that is stored in a computer-readable recording medium for causing the control method to be executed by being combined with a computer which is hardware. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification describes high level general purpose computer, “a processor (CPU) of a computer through a device interface of the computer in order to cause the computer to read the program and execute the methods implemented as the program” and “The application may be installed on the electronic identification code scanner 300 by being stored in the memory 305, and may be driven to perform an action (or function) by the at least one processor 303 via the processor 303 stored in the memory 305”) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. Further, in accordance to MPEP 2106.05(f), the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: an electronic identification code scanner comprising: a memory configured to store logistics environment information in advance; a GPS module configured to receive GPS information(recited at high level of generality as means to gather information); a scan sensor configured to scan an electronic identification code (recited at high level amounts to data gathering means); a communication module configured to transmit the event information, a processor, a communication module configured to transmit the event information, the processor is configured to obtain the object information, and a computer program that is stored in a computer-readable recording medium for causing the control method to be executed by being combined with a computer which is hardware. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification describes high level general purpose computer, “a processor (CPU) of a computer through a device interface of the computer in order to cause the computer to read the program and execute the methods implemented as the program” and “The application may be installed on the electronic identification code scanner 300 by being stored in the memory 305, and may be driven to perform an action (or function) by the at least one processor 303 via the processor 303 stored in the memory 305”) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims further recite additional elements. Claims 3 and 6 recite he processor is configured to transmit the event information, which has converted into the standardized format to the tracking device by inputting the event information into a separate platform or app for providing a supply chain transaction information tracking service, and wherein the tracking device is configured to receive the event information and generate a map for tracking a manufacturing or distribution process for a specific product by reflecting the event information in a supply chain scenario related to the specific product among a plurality of supply chain scenarios. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification describes high level general purpose computer, “a processor (CPU) of a computer through a device interface of the computer in order to cause the computer to read the program and execute the methods implemented as the program” and “The application may be installed on the electronic identification code scanner 300 by being stored in the memory 305, and may be driven to perform an action (or function) by the at least one processor 303 via the processor 303 stored in the memory 305”) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. Further, in accordance to MPEP 2106.05(f), the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). . These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification describes high level general purpose computer, “a processor (CPU) of a computer through a device interface of the computer in order to cause the computer to read the program and execute the methods implemented as the program” and “The application may be installed on the electronic identification code scanner 300 by being stored in the memory 305, and may be driven to perform an action (or function) by the at least one processor 303 via the processor 303 stored in the memory 305”) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)).
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of certain methods of organizing human activity, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Rhee Jong Tae (KR 20140029866 A, hereinafter “Tae”) in view of Jang Hyun Jin (KR 20220064245 A, hereinafter “Jin”) in view of Nader Mikhail (US 2019/0207807 A1, hereinafter “Mikhail”).
Claim 1/4/7
Tae teaches:
An electronic identification code scanner comprising: a scan sensor configured to scan an electronic identification code (Tae; [0056] the RFID sensor tag is attached to the moving object, the reader and the middleware (scan sensor) sense the EPC of the object from the RFID sensor tag, and then the EPC of the object sensed by the object information server is transmitted. [0192] Since the main purpose of RFID based supply chain process mining is to derive the process structure of the supply chain related to the object, it selects the readPoint which can identify the object of the RFID event data and assign a unique ID as WorkflowModelElement. [0211] computer-readable recording medium on which a program for execution by a computer is recorded. At this time, the computer-readable recording medium includes all kinds of recording apparatuses in which data that can be read by a computer system is stored);
[...] identify event information corresponding to the scanned electronic identification code and convert the event information into a predetermined standardized format for supply chain transaction information(Tae; [0056] the RFID sensor tag is attached to the moving object, the reader and the middleware sense the EPC of the object from the RFID sensor tag, and then the EPC of the object sensed by the object information server is transmitted, The object information server internally stores the EPC of the object sensed by the reader and the middleware. [0193] RFID recognition is performed by RFID reader, so readPoint is assigned to Originator, and eventTime means event occurrence time, so it is assigned to Timestamp whose meaning agrees. [0193] the process instance data converter of the process mining application shown in FIG. 18 converts RFID events collected from the traceability system into MXML format and stores them in the process instance storage.), the standardized format including object information, time information, location information and purpose information ([0084]-[0086] and [0184] –[0186] As shown in FIG. 20, it can be seen that the history information of the object passing through the supply chain to a series of logistics processes (factory-warehouse-logistics center-distribution center-store) is one instance of the supply chain process. In order for the business process mining framework (ProM) to analyze the supply chain process by using the history information of these objects, the RFID event schema collected from the EPC global network by the MXML schema and the traceability server is not completely meaningful, And converts the history information formed based on the RFID communication into the MXML form so as to define the process instance state. [0186] As shown in FIG. 21, the AuditTrailEntry indicates one event data included in a specific process instance. These AuditTrailEntries include WorkflowModelElement, which indicates the type of job, EventType, which indicates the type of event, such as start and end, Timestamp, which means event time, and Originator, which contains the performer. [0189] As such, the EPC event tracked by the history tracking server encompasses all event attributes of the object information server. Each of these EPC events is stored with four perspectives of what, where, when and when. The What stores the EPC representing the ID of the object, (Read Point) and a business location indicating a sensing point of the RFID sensor tag of the object are stored. When the event time (EventTime), which is the sensing time, and the record time (RecordTime) In the Why, bizStep indicating the step of the business process and disposition indicating the state of the object due to the step are stored, respectively);
and a communication module configured to transmit the event information having the standardized format, wherein the logistics environment information includes an event type (EPCIS EVENT TYPE) indicating a change in a specific variable or state, a business step (EPCIS Biz-Step) indicating a specific step or state in a business process, and a location period indicating a period of time during which a product stays at a specific location ([0056] 4, the RFID sensor tag is attached to the moving object, the reader and the middleware sense the EPC of the object from the RFID sensor tag, and then the EPC of the object sensed by the object information server is transmitted, The object information server internally stores the EPC of the object sensed by the reader and the middleware. [0186] As shown in FIG. 21, the AuditTrailEntry indicates one event data included in a specific process instance. These AuditTrailEntries include WorkflowModelElement, which indicates the type of job, EventType, which indicates the type of event, such as start and end, Timestamp, which means event time, and Originator, which contains the performer. [0189] As such, the EPC event tracked by the history tracking server encompasses all event attributes of the object information server. Each of these EPC events is stored with four perspectives of what, where, when and when. The What stores the EPC representing the ID of the object, (Read Point) and a business location indicating a sensing point of the RFID sensor tag of the object are stored. When the event time (EventTime), which is the sensing time, and the record time (RecordTime) In the Why, bizStep indicating the step of the business process and disposition indicating the state of the object due to the step are stored, respectively),
and wherein [...] obtain the object information from the identified event information, obtain the time information and the location information from [sensor]( [0186] As shown in FIG. 21, the AuditTrailEntry indicates one event data included in a specific process instance. These AuditTrailEntries include WorkflowModelElement, which indicates the type of job, EventType, which indicates the type of event, such as start and end, Timestamp, which means event time, and Originator, which contains the performer. [00189] As such, the EPC event tracked by the history tracking server encompasses all event attributes of the object information server. Each of these EPC events is stored with four perspectives of what, where, when and when. The What stores the EPC representing the ID of the object, (Read Point) and a business location indicating a sensing point of the RFID sensor tag of the object are stored. When the event time (EventTime), which is the sensing time, and the record time (RecordTime)),
and generate an event indicating a change in a variable from a Core Business Vocabulary (CBV), based on the business step whenever a value of the variable changes according to a predetermined condition, using the business step indicating the specific step or state in the business process among the logistics environment information to obtain the purpose information indicating at which business step in the business process the value of the variable has changed for the generated event, the value of the variable being determined by the event type([0076[The reader and the middleware use an interval method for periodically sensing data at predetermined time intervals from an RFID sensor tag attached to an object and an immediate method for temporarily sensing data only when a system request is generated. At this time, in the case of the immediate method, it can be used in the case where a logistics event such as an object is received in a business place or shipped. the interval method and the immediate method may be used by being fused with each other. [0081]The fusion method continuously compares the sensing data with the tolerance range. When the sensing data is determined to be normal, the sensing data is transmitted to the object information server through the initially set interval method. Immediately after the sensing data out of the tolerance range, A method of reducing the transmission period of the sensing data may be used. [0082] As the sensing data is transmitted to the object information server, the object information server stores the received sensing data in the form of an EPC event. An EPC event (EPCISEvent) is stored with four perspectives of what, where, when, and when. The What stores the EPC representing the ID of the object, A read point and a business location indicating a sensing point of the RFID sensor tag of the object are stored. In the case, the event time (EventTime), which is the sensing time, and the record time (RecordTime) Quot; BizStep " indicating the step of the business process and " disposition indicating the state of the object due to the step are stored(i.e., change in an Event), while [0090] A transaction event (TransactionEvent) defines a processing state of an event occurring in the object, and indicates that the EPC obtained from the object and the business transaction are related ).
While Tae teaches in [0012] an international logistics monitoring server for communicating with the key mapping server and the tracking server and providing the logistics history information corresponding to the received key value to the information inquiry requester when the received key value is inputted, And a technology for collectively managing EPC information related to an RFID event, B2B information, and import-export customs logistics information by acquiring related logistics keying information through a keying system, And to eliminate the disconnection / decentralization of information by a complex logistics key and [0076] the reader and the middleware use an interval method for periodically sensing data at predetermined time intervals from an RFID sensor tag attached to an object and an immediate method for temporarily sensing data only when a system request is generated. At this time, in the case of the immediate method, it can be used in the case where a logistics event such as an object is received in a business place or shipped. Tae does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference, in the field of supply chain management, Jin teaches:
a processor configured to perform functions ([0029] a plurality of "modules", "units", "parts", etc. are integrated into at least one module or chip, and are integrated into at least one processor, except when each needs to be implemented in individual specific hardware);
a memory configured to store logistics environment information in advance (Jin; [0039] The logistics platform server 200 may provide various logistics services based on the integrated logistics data stored in the logistic data integration DB 300 and input information input from the user terminal 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jin with Tae, because the references are analogous and compatible since they are directed to the same field of endeavor of supply chain management, to include processor and a memory configured to store logistics environment information in advance as part of supply chain tracking taught in Tae. Doing so would aim to provide a logistics platform system that integrates logistics data and provides recommended logistics routes to improve supply chain tracking [0005].
While Tae teaches in [0084] An EPC event (EPCISEvent) is stored with four perspectives of what, where, when, and when. The What stores the EPC representing the ID of the object, A read point and a business location indicating a sensing point of the RFID sensor tag of the object are stored. Tae does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference, in the field of supply chain management, Mikhail teaches:
a GPS module configured to receive GPS information; gather data from the GPS information ([0107] The transport module 328 can use one or more independent sources, in addition to the freight carrier or shipping company, to determine status and/or location of a selected shipment. One independent source is an RTLS system using a combination of satellite position information (such as a satellite positioning system (“SPS”), e.g., GPS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mikhail with Tae and Jin, because the references are analogous and compatible since they are directed to the same field of endeavor of supply chain management, to include a GPS module configured to receive GPS information as part of supply chain tracking taught in Tae. Doing so would improve supply chain tracking location of products by analyzing the impact of an event on a network [0002].
Claim 2/5
Tae further teaches:
The electronic identification code scanner of claim 1, wherein the purpose information includes at least one of a Business step representing a specific activity or task in a business process; a Disposition representing a disposition or decision about an asset or resource; a Business Transaction List representing a list of transactions that have occurred in the business; a Source List representing a list associated with resources, materials, or suppliers needed in the business; and a Destination List representing a location or destination to which a product, service, or resource is being moved or delivered in the business process([0090] A transaction event (TransactionEvent) defines a processing state of an event occurring in the object, and indicates that the EPC obtained from the object and the business transaction are related. [0115] for each of the object event, the combining event, and the processing event in the EPC event, the time at which the event occurred, the time at which the event was stored in the object information server, the EPC list, the EPC list included as a child, ID, an object or a business number, a place where the object is sensed, a place where the object stays, a business step, a state of an object, a business transaction list, and the like. [0084]-[0086] describes Why bizStep: business process step eg receiving, shippingDisposition: Product status example: sellable_accessible, active, in_transit ).
Claim 3/6
While Tae teaches in [0012] an international logistics monitoring server for communicating with the key mapping server and the tracking server and providing the logistics history information corresponding to the received key value to the information inquiry requester when the received key value is inputted, And a technology for collectively managing EPC information related to an RFID event, B2B information, and import-export customs logistics information by acquiring related logistics keying information through a keying system, And to eliminate the disconnection / decentralization of information by a complex logistics key and [0076] the reader and the middleware use an interval method for periodically sensing data at predetermined time intervals from an RFID sensor tag attached to an object and an immediate method for temporarily sensing data only when a system request is generated. At this time, in the case of the immediate method, it can be used in the case where a logistics event such as an object is received in a business place or shipped. Tae does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference, in the field of supply chain management, Jin teaches:
The electronic identification code scanner of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the event information, which has converted into the standardized format to the tracking device by inputting the event information into a separate platform or app for providing a supply chain transaction information tracking service ([0055] [The route generator 230 of the present invention may set a logistics route based on input information and standardized integrated logistics data. That is, the route generator 230 may generate a route by analyzing the integrated logistics data and input information),
and wherein the tracking device is configured to receive the event information and generate a map for tracking a manufacturing or distribution process for a specific product by reflecting the event information in a supply chain scenario related to the specific product among a plurality of supply chain scenarios([0057] The route generator 230 may reflect the status of the transportation network of the geographic information system (GIS)/intelligent transportation system (ITS) in generating the logistics route. In this case, the geographic information system (GIS) may be geographic information that collects, stores, updates, adjusts, analyzes, and expresses geospatially referable information (i.e., tracking event information in supply chain scenario). The intelligent transportation system (ITS) automates the operation and management of transportation systems by applying advanced technologies such as electronics, control and communication to transportation means and transportation facilities, and can provide information on vehicle signals, etc. In addition, the route generator 230 may utilize the logistics data collected from a logistics specialist (3PL), a logistics consulting company, a courier company, a forwarder, a trading company, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mikhail with Tae and Jin, because the references are analogous and compatible since they are directed to the same field of endeavor of supply chain management, to include transmit the event information, which has converted into the standardized format to the tracking device by inputting the event information into a separate platform or app for providing a supply chain transaction information tracking service and to receive the event information and generate a map for tracking a manufacturing or distribution process for a specific product by reflecting the event information in a supply chain scenario related to the specific product among a plurality of supply chain scenarios as part of supply chain tracking taught in Tae. Doing so would improve supply chain tracking location of products by analyzing the impact of an event on a network [0005].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190260592 A1
METHODS FOR SECURE SERIALIZATION OF SUPPLY CHAIN PRODUCT UNITS
Nguyen; Kelly D. X. et al.
US 20130262330 A1
MANAGING OBJECTS IN A SUPPLY CHAIN USING A SECURE IDENTIFIER
SANNIER; Gael et al.
US 20100153870 A1
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SUPPLY CHAIN EVENT VISUALIZATION
Hoffmann; Florian
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625