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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on November 27, 2024.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending, and Claims 1 and 19 are independent.
Continuation In Part
This application is a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application of U.S. application 17/743,713 filed on 05/13/2021, and a provisional application 63/188346 filed on 05/13/2021. See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Drawings
The drawings from Fig. 78 to Fig. 90 are objected because they are fuzzy/illegible; the labels/contents of the drawings are unclear and the image is blurry. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Claim Objection
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 20 recite “A system for data aggregation, data processing, and messaging comprising:”, for the clarity and completeness purposes, the phase “messaging comprising:” needs to be clarified because it is unclear whether the messaging comprising or the system comprising. Examiner interpreted the claims to read “A system for data aggregation, data processing, and messaging, the system comprising:” for the purpose of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12 and 20, the claims recite one or more of “a delivery metric gathering device”, “a delivery metric analysis device”, “a message transmission device”, “a driver device”, and “a manager device” with functions, which are directed the means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, (f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, see MPEP 2181 (I)(A).
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Here, even though “means for” has not been explicitly recited, claim limitations “a delivery metric gathering device”, “a delivery metric analysis device”, “a message transmission device”, “a driver device”, and “a manager device” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder with functional language “a delivery metric gathering device” configured to receive one or more delivery metrics and send the delivery metrics to the delivery metric analysis device; “a delivery metric analysis device” configured to generate performance data and determine when the one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of the one or more manager ranges of acceptable value; “a delivery message transmission device” configured to send a driver message to the driver device and a manager message to the manager device, and automatically send a communication to said driver device; in turn the “driver device” is configured to receive driver message; and the “manager device” is configured to receive manager message. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, 12 and 20, as discussed above, the claims include language that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), or sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to (1) disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function and/or (2) clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Here, the claims recite the following limitations: “a delivery metric gathering device” configured to receive one or more delivery metrics and send the delivery metrics to the delivery metric analysis device; “a delivery metric analysis device” configured to generate performance data and determine when the one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of the one or more manager ranges of acceptable value; “a delivery message transmission device” configured to send a driver message to the driver device and a manager message to the manager device, and automatically send a communication to said driver device; in turn the “driver device” is configured to receive driver message; and the “manager device” is configured to receive manager message and prompt the manager to enter one or more manager ranges of acceptable values of the one or more delivery metrics, which are directed to specialized devices for the functions, and thus they are indefinite.
For each of the indefinite function as described above, Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The other dependent claims are also rejected for the same reasons as each depends on the rejected claims.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to 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, Claims 1-20 are directed to systems comprising limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, without reciting sufficient structure in the claims to achieve the functions, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are directed to systems comprising software per se, which is not fall within the four statutory categories. However, claims 1-20 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With respect to claims 1-20, as understood, claims 1 and 20 recite as a system without positive recitation of any physical structure in the body is considered to be software per se and therefore is not fall within any of the four statutory categories. If Applicant desired to claim an apparatus (system) claim, it must be included at least one identified hardware (e.g., a processor, memory) in the body of the claim.
Further, software, program, instructions or code not claimed as stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium/memory are not statutory because they are directed to electromagnetic carrier signals.
Furthermore, software, program, instructions or code are stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium/memory, but not claimed as being computer executable and executed by a computer are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in a computer.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations of “receiving one or more delivery metrics associated with one or more driver, sending one or more deliver metric to the delivery metric analysis device, prompting a driver to enter one or more driver range of acceptable value, prompting a manager to enter one or more manager range of acceptable values, determining when the delivery metrics is a value outside of the deriver rangers of acceptable values, sending a driver message to the driver device when the delivery metrics is a value outside of the driver ranger, determining when the delivery metrics is a value outside of the manager ranges of acceptable value, and send a manager message to the manager device, generating performance data based on said one or more delivery metrics, generating one or more ranking scorecards, generating an injury form based on the injury information input, sending a communication to the driver device, and assigning a weight to each of the data metrics”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are certain methods of organizing human activity covers managing interactions between peoples (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, claims recite a concept similar to the claims as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites no additional element for executing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 1 recites an additional elements of “a processor” for executing the steps. The processor is no more than a general purpose processor that may executes software programs, receives/sends information over a network, and stores information in a storage device. See Specification in ¶ 230. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receive and send data over a network. Thus, the claims recite no additional element to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites no additional element for executing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 1 recites an additional elements of “a processor” for executing the steps. The processor is no more than a general purpose processor that may executes software programs, receives/sends information over a network, and stores information in a storage device. See Specification in ¶ 230. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receive and send data over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (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); 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); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-19 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claim 20 parallels claims 1-19—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer et al., (US 2021/0118330, hereinafter: Baer), and in view of Hodges et al., (US 2016/0117928, hereinafter: Hodges).
Regarding claim 1, Baer discloses a system for data aggregation, data processing, and messaging comprising:
a delivery metric gathering device (see Fig. 2, ¶ 26);
a delivery metric analysis device (see Fig. 2, ¶ 26);
a message transmission device (see Fig. 2, ¶ 26);
wherein said delivery metric gathering device is configured to receive one or more delivery metrics associated with one or more drivers (see ¶ 26, ¶ 30, ¶ 36-37, ¶ 59);
wherein said delivery metric analysis device determines when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more driver ranges of acceptable values (see ¶ 4, ¶ 38, ¶ 46);
wherein when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more driver ranges of acceptable values, said message transmission device is configured to send a driver message to said driver device (see ¶ 44, ¶ 48, ¶ 69-70, ¶ 96);
wherein said delivery metric analysis device determines when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more manager ranges of acceptable values (see ¶ 46, ¶ 54-55); and
wherein when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more manager ranges of acceptable values, said message transmission device is configured to send a manager message to said manager device (see ¶ 50, ¶ 69-70).
Baer discloses a plurality of mobile devices and in-vehicle devices installed in the vehicle (see ¶ 27-29); and a value based on the amount of time and distance traveled by the driver (see ¶ 79).
Baer does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hoges in an analogous art for driver analysis discloses
a driver device (see Fig. 1, ¶ 35); and
a manager device (see Fig. 1, ¶ 31);
wherein said delivery metric gathering device is configured to send said one or more delivery metrics to said delivery metric analysis device (see ¶ 28, ¶ 33, ¶ 41);
wherein a driver is prompted to enter into said driver device one or more driver ranges of acceptable values of said one or more delivery metrics (see ¶ 4, ¶ 35, ¶ 60, ¶ 104);
wherein a manager is prompted to enter into said manager device one or more manager ranges of acceptable values of said one or more delivery metrics (see ¶ 4, ¶ 31, ¶ 74, ¶ 77, ¶ 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer to include teaching of Hoges in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data gathering, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Baer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein said delivery metric analysis device is configured to generate performance data based on said one or more delivery metrics (see Fig. 9, # 806; ¶ 65-68).
Regarding claim 3, Baer discloses the system of claim 2, wherein said performance data comprises one or more of: a picture upon delivery report, a delivery service partner delivery excellence performance report, a customer feedback report, and a driver performance report (see ¶ 34-35, ¶ 38-40, ¶ 46).
In addition, claim 3 merely describes the type of performance data is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 4, Baer does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hodges discloses the system of claim 1, wherein said one or more delivery metrics are used to generate one or more ranking scorecards (see ¶ 14, ¶ 81, ¶ 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer to include teaching of Hoges in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data gathering, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Baer discloses the system of claim 4, wherein said one or more delivery metrics comprise one or more of:
acceleration metrics (see ¶ 38, ¶ 48-49), braking metrics (see ¶ 4, ¶ 45), cornering metrics, speeding metrics (see ¶ 30-31, ¶ 38), distraction metrics, seatbelt metrics, back up metrics, mile-per-gallon metrics (see ¶ 6-7, ¶ 32, ¶ 78), idling metrics (see ¶ 62), odometer reading metrics, and engine off metrics (see ¶ 35).
In addition, claim 7 merely characterizes the one or more delivery metrics is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 8, Baer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein said driver message and manager message are transmitted via wireless communications (see ¶ 27-28, ¶ 35).
Regarding claim 10, Baer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein said delivery metric gathering device is operated by a first entity and said delivery metric analysis device is operated by a second entity (see ¶ 81, ¶ 88).
Regarding claim 11, Baer discloses the system of claim 10, wherein said driver device is operated by said driver and said manager device is operated by said manager (see ¶ 42, ¶ 69).
Regarding claim 12, Baer discloses he system of claim 3, wherein when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more manager ranges of acceptable values, said message transmission device is configured to automatically send a communication to said driver device (see Abstract; ¶ 8-10, ¶ 24, ¶ 45); wherein said communication comprises one or more of actionable coaching and positive reinforcement (see ¶ 10, ¶ 35-36).
Regarding claim 13, Baer discloses he system of claim 7, wherein said one or more delivery metrics further comprise one or more third party scorecards (see ¶ 44, ¶ 62).
In addition, claim 13 merely characterizes the one or more delivery metrics is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 14, Baer discloses he system of claim 13, wherein said one or more delivery metrics further comprise attendance issues, van damage, rescues, and insubordination (see ¶ 8, ¶ 32, claim 9).
In addition, claim 14 merely characterizes the one or more delivery metrics is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 15, Baer does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hodges discloses the system of claim 14, wherein each of said one or more drivers are ranked according to said one or more ranking scorecards (see ¶ 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer to include teaching of Hoges in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data gathering, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Baer does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hodges discloses the system of claim 15, wherein said one or more ranking scorecards are generated based on said delivery metrics collected over a specified period of time (see ¶ 81, ¶ 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer to include teaching of Hoges in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data gathering, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17, Baer discloses the system of claim 16, wherein said specified period of time is between 7 days and 180 days (see ¶ 38, ¶ 77, ¶ 88).
Regarding claim 18, Baer discloses he system of claim 1, wherein said data metrics are imported by a data import algorithm from files provided by one or more third parties (see ¶ 45-46, ¶ 59, ¶ 62).
Regarding claim 19, Baer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of said data metrics are assigned a weighted value, wherein that is adjustable by said first entity and said second entity (see ¶ 38-39, ¶ 48).
Claims 5, 6, 9 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer and in view of Hoges as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Jung et al., (US 2019/0224529, hereinafter: Jung) and Coughran et al., (US 2023/0342708, hereinafter: Coughran).
Regarding claim 5, Baer and Hodges do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jung in a coaching system discloses he system of claim 4, wherein said delivery metrics comprise an injury information input (see ¶ 10, ¶ 108, ¶ 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer and in view of Hoges to include teaching of Jung in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhanced data analysis, and enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, claim 5 merely characterizes the delivery metrics is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 6, Baer and Hodges do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jung in a coaching system discloses the system of claim 5, wherein said injury information input relates to injuries caused to said one or more drivers while performing delivery related activities (see ¶ 21, ¶ 106, ¶ 215); and generating an injury form based on said injury information input (see ¶ 2, ¶ 7, ¶ 73-74, ¶ 106-107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer and in view of Hoges to include teaching of Jung in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhanced data analysis, and enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Baer, Hoges and Jung do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Coughran in an analogous art for scheduling task management discloses the system of claim 1, wherein said delivery metrics comprise inventory management data (see ¶ 165-168); and wherein said inventory management data comprises information about product inventory (see ¶ 175, ¶ 195-198).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer and in view of Hoges and Jung to include teaching of Coughran in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional viewpoint and in turn promoting different data analysis. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, claim 9 merely describes type of inventory data is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 20, Baer discloses a system for data aggregation, data processing, and messaging comprising:
a delivery metric gathering device (see Fig. 2, ¶ 26);
a delivery metric analysis device (see Fig. 2, ¶ 26);
a message transmission device (see Fig. 2, ¶ 26);
wherein said delivery metric gathering device is configured to receive one or more delivery metrics associated with one or more drivers (see ¶ 26, ¶ 30, ¶ 36-37, ¶ 59);
wherein said delivery metric analysis device determines when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more driver ranges of acceptable values (see ¶ 4, ¶ 38, ¶ 46);
wherein when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more driver ranges of acceptable values, said message transmission device is configured to send a driver message to said driver device (see ¶ 44, ¶ 48, ¶ 69-70, ¶ 96);
wherein said delivery metric analysis device determines when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more manager ranges of acceptable values (see ¶ 46, ¶ 54-55); and
wherein when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more manager ranges of acceptable values, said message transmission device is configured to send a manager message to said manager device (see ¶ 50, ¶ 69-70);
wherein said delivery metric analysis device is configured to generate performance data based on said one or more delivery metrics (see Fig. 9, # 806; ¶ 65-68);
wherein said performance data comprises one or more of: a picture upon delivery report, a delivery service partner delivery excellence performance report, a customer feedback report, and a driver performance report (see ¶ 34-35, ¶ 38-40, ¶ 46);
wherein said one or more delivery metrics comprise one or more of: acceleration metrics (see ¶ 38, ¶ 48-49), braking metrics (see ¶ 4, ¶ 45), cornering metrics, speeding metrics (see ¶ 30-31, ¶ 38), distraction metrics, seatbelt metrics, back up metrics, mile-per-gallon metrics (see ¶ 6-7, ¶ 32, ¶ 78), idling metrics (see ¶ 62), odometer reading metrics, one or more third party scorecards (see ¶ 44, ¶ 62); attendance issues; van damage; rescues; insubordination; and engine off metrics see ¶ 35);
wherein said driver message and said manager message are transmitted via wireless communications (see ¶ 27-28, ¶ 35);
wherein said delivery metric gathering device is operated by a first entity and said delivery metric analysis device is operated by a second entity (see ¶ 81, ¶ 88);
wherein said driver device is operated by said driver and said manager device is operated by said manager (see ¶ 42, ¶ 69);
wherein when said one or more delivery metrics is a value outside of said one or more manager ranges of acceptable values, said message transmission device is configured to automatically send a communication to said driver device (see Abstract; ¶ 8-10, ¶ 24, ¶ 45);
wherein said communication comprises one or more of actionable coaching and positive reinforcement (see ¶ 10, ¶ 35-36);
wherein said one or more ranking scorecards are generated based on said delivery metrics collected over a specified period of time (see ¶ 38, ¶ 77, ¶ 88);
wherein said data metrics are imported by a data import algorithm from files provided by one or more third parties (see ¶ 45-46, ¶ 59, ¶ 62); and
wherein each of said data metrics are assigned a weighted value, wherein that is adjustable by said first entity and said second entity (see ¶ 38-39, ¶ 48).
Baer discloses a plurality of mobile devices and in-vehicle devices installed in the vehicle (see ¶ 27-29); and a value based on the amount of time and distance traveled by the driver (see ¶ 79).
Baer does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hoges in an analogous art for driver analysis discloses
a driver device (see Fig. 1, ¶ 35); and
a manager device (see Fig. 1, ¶ 31);
wherein said delivery metric gathering device is configured to send said one or more delivery metrics to said delivery metric analysis device (see ¶ 28, ¶ 33, ¶ 41);
wherein a driver is prompted to enter into said driver device one or more driver ranges of acceptable values of said one or more delivery metrics (see ¶ 4, ¶ 35, ¶ 60, ¶ 104);
wherein a manager is prompted to enter into said manager device one or more manager ranges of acceptable values of said one or more delivery metrics (see ¶ 4, ¶ 31, ¶ 74, ¶ 77, ¶ 105);
wherein said one or more delivery metrics are used to generate one or more ranking scorecards (see ¶ 14, ¶ 81, ¶ 85);
wherein each of said one or more drivers are ranked according to said one or more ranking scorecards (see ¶ 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer to include teaching of Hoges in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data gathering, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Baer and Hodges do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jung discloses
wherein said delivery metrics comprise an injury information input (see ¶ 10, ¶ 108, ¶ 135) and inventory management data;
wherein said injury information input relates to injuries caused to said one or more drivers while performing delivery related activities (see ¶ 21, ¶ 106, ¶ 215); and generating an injury form based on said injury information input (see ¶ 2, ¶ 7, ¶ 73-74, ¶ 106-107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer and in view of Hoges to include teaching of Jung in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhanced data analysis, and enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Baer, Hoges and Jung do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Coughran discloses
wherein said delivery metrics comprise inventory management data (see ¶ 165-168);
wherein said inventory management data comprises information about product inventory (see ¶ 175, ¶ 195-198).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Baer and in view of Hoges to include teaching of Coughran in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional viewpoint and in turn promoting different data analysis. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the phrases “wherein said delivery metrics comprise an injury information input and inventory management data”, “wherein said inventory management data comprises information about product inventory” merely describing the type of inventory data is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gerjestani et al., (US 2015/0356501) discloses a method for transmitting information that identifies a delivery worker who is handling delivery of orders to a current location of the mobile computing device as both of the current location change over time.
Rini et al., (US 2018/0268341) discloses a method for coaching and performance feedback with dashboards and reporting tools to help sales managers develop the selling intelligence of sales representatives and increase their sales productivity.
Koti et al., (WO 2018106575 A1) discloses a delivery management system for determining bottleneck conditions from one or more vehicles and/or one or more infrastructure conditions and providing one or more recommended action.
Armitage et al., (US 2014/0099607) discloses a method for operating a driver analysis system comprising receiving vehicle operation data corresponding to operation of vehicles by drivers to determine driving performance.
Jain et al., “Quality metrics in Continuous Delivery”, Faculty of Computing Blekinge Institute of Technology SE-371 79 Karlskrona Sweden, 2016.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624