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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 12/14/24, the following is a first action non-final office action. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, this claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 1 as a whole recite a method of “Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts”. First, claim 1 recites a method for logistics planning, supply chain management, and resource allocation, which is direct to “Organizing Human Activity”. Claim 1 also recites calculating resource consumption, determining transportation durations through “determining a respective resource consumption and a respective transportation duration of a respective transportation route...”, simulating multiple routes through determining “determining a first transportation route among the plurality of transportation routes...”, and selecting an optimal route according to predetermined conditions through “initiating the providing of the product...according to the first transportation route”. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes using a generic computer to perform calculations and simulations, and initiating delivery of a product by a transportation device. These elements are well-understood, routine and conventional computer implementations and do not improve the functioning of the computer or any other technology. The claim merely automates an abstract idea using generic computer components.
Simply integrating the abstract idea on a generic computer is insufficient to embody a practical application.
Finally, claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept. The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, solve a technical problem with a technical solution, or improve computer functionality or transportation technology in a specific unconventional way. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
With regard to dependent claims 2-13, these claims depend on independent claim 1, and are rejected under 35 USC 101 for similar reasons based on their dependency from independent claim 1.
With regard to independent claim 14, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim1 and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 for similar reasons.
With regard to independent claim 15, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim1 and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 for similar reasons.
With regard to dependent claims 16-18, these claims depend on independent claim 15, and are rejected under 35 USC 101 for similar reasons based on their dependency from independent claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson et al’s “Optimizing route choice for lowest fuel consumption–Potential effects of a new driver support tool”, and further in view of Luo et al (US 20230259872 A).
As per claim 1, Ericsson et al discloses:
determining a respective resource consumption and a respective transportation duration of a respective transportation route of the product from a predeterminable point of origin to the target location; the determining of the respective resource consumption and the respective transportation duration comprising simulating a plurality of transportation routes from the predeterminable point of origin to the target location, (Page 375, para. 2: “Using the network analyst tool in ESRI’s ArcView program, which is based on Dijkstras algorithm (Zhao, 1997), the routes between the origin and destination of the 50 journeys were optimized with regard to: (1) the lowest fuel consumption, (2) the shortest time, and (3) the shortest distance. The fuel consumption, time and distance were compared for the three routes... For each of the optimized parameters the other two were estimated. For example, when the route was optimized for the shortest time, the distance and fuel consumption for that route were estimated”);
determining a first transportation route among the plurality of transportation routes that satisfies at least one predeterminable condition with regard to the respective resource consumption and the respective transportation duration, (In order to study whether there was a better choice of route, the most fuel-saving route between the origin and destination of the 50 journeys was again optimized, now with the added extra fuel penalty on the disturbed segment. The number of cases for which better route choices were available was noted, together with the saving in fuel consumption and time, if any. The gain was estimated through the differences, in fuel consumption and time, between the routes without and with the information from the probe vehicles);
Ericsson et al does not specifically disclose:
initiating the providing of the product by at least one transportation device according to the first transportation route,
However, Luo discloses: See Fig. 1 [shows a vehicle for transporting the perishable food item[s]]; [0004] “where the first path is a first candidate delivery route that includes loading a perishable food item at the first source node, traveling along the vehicle route represented by the first edge, and delivering the perishable food item at the first destination node...The embodiment also includes generating a route plan that includes a plurality of finalized delivery routes that provide for delivery of perishable food items from the source nodes to the destination nodes, the plurality of finalized delivery routes including the first finalized delivery route. Other embodiments of this aspect include corresponding computer systems, apparatus, and computer programs recorded on one or more computer storage devices, each configured to perform the actions of the embodiment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 2, Ericsson et al does not disclose the following however Luo discloses:
wherein the at least one predeterminable condition is configured as an optimum of an objective function that takes into account the respective resource consumption with a first weighting factor and the respective transportation duration with a second weighting factor, (Luo [0004] The embodiment also includes processing the path data using a plurality of evaluation techniques that result in a first set of evaluation values, where the plurality of evaluation techniques comprises a first evaluation technique based on a first optimization metric, a second evaluation techniques based on a second optimization metric, and a third evaluation technique based on a combination of the first and second evaluation techniques; [0142] In the illustrated embodiment, the historical path optimization module 414 also builds demand and supply constraints for the current distribution and transport problem. The historical path optimization module 414 will then check candidate delivery routes for compliance with the constraints. Examples of constraints for an embodiment are as follows: [0143] a) Vehicle transport load, i.e., a transport weight of a vehicle k cannot exceed the maximize load rating for that vehicle [0144] b) Factory demand satisfaction, the supplied dairy products must meet the demand of the dairy factory on a per-category basis [0145] c) Limited Source supply, the load amount at a source node cannot exceed the amount of food product available on a per-category basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 5, Ericsson et al does not disclose the following however Luo discloses: wherein a plurality of points of origin are available for production of the product with a respective origin resource consumption, wherein the respective resource consumption of the respective transportation route of the product comprises the respective origin resource consumption for the production of the product, ([0029] In some embodiments, when the process identifies a node that corresponds with some characteristic data, the process associates the characteristic data with that node, and then identifies the node as a source node if the characteristic data is supplier characteristic data or as a destination node if the characteristic data is processor characteristic data. In some embodiments, the source nodes represent dairy farms and the characteristic data in the data property of the source nodes may include supplier characteristic data such as product categories (e.g., categories of perishable food) produced by the dairy farm and respective production levels; [0040] The hybrid A-Star algorithm starts at a source node and uses a plurality of evaluation techniques to evaluate multiple path and transport options across multiple time periods. The evaluation techniques are based on the evaluation metrics determined by the process and combinations thereof...each evaluation technique includes a respective one of the following evaluation functions:... f4: Extent of supply consumption, C [0045] f5: Extent of supply consumption/Number of vehicles used/Transportation cost, C/D/A [0046] f6: Extent of supply consumption/Transportation cost, C/A [0047] f7: Extent of supply consumption/Number of vehicles used, C/D [0048] f8: Number of vehicles used/Transportation cost...); and
wherein the respective transportation duration of the respective transportation route of
the product takes into account the predeterminable point of origin, ([0029] In some embodiments, when the process identifies a node that corresponds with some characteristic data, the process associates the characteristic data with that node, and then identifies the node as a source node if the characteristic data is supplier characteristic data or as a destination node if the characteristic data is processor characteristic data. In some embodiments, the source nodes represent dairy farms and the characteristic data in the data property of the source nodes may include supplier characteristic data such as product categories (e.g., categories of perishable food) produced by the dairy farm and respective production levels, as well as location, hours of operation, point of contact information, and so on. In some embodiments, transport vehicles are provided by the dairy farms, and the data property includes supplier characteristic data about available vehicles, such as the number of vehicles, the respective load capacities, cost of operation (e.g., dollars per mile or per hour), etc.); [where dollars per hour represent the duration of the present invention]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 6, Ericsson et al does not disclose the following however Luo discloses:
wherein the respective resource consumption of the respective transportation route of the product comprises the respective origin resource consumption for the production of the product at the predeterminable point of origin, ([0040] The hybrid A-Star algorithm starts at a source node and uses a plurality of evaluation techniques to evaluate multiple path and transport options across multiple time periods. The evaluation techniques are based on the evaluation metrics determined by the process and combinations thereof...each evaluation technique includes a respective one of the following evaluation functions:... f4: Extent of supply consumption, C [0045] f5: Extent of supply consumption/Number of vehicles used/Transportation cost, C/D/A [0046] f6: Extent of supply consumption/Transportation cost, C/A [0047] f7: Extent of supply consumption/Number of vehicles used, C/D [0048] f8: Number of vehicles used/Transportation cost...).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 9, Ericsson et al does not disclose the following however Luo discloses:
providing information about the respective resource consumption with regard to internal or external transportation or transportation by land, road, rail, ship or air, or about transshipment or storage processes, ([0030] In some such embodiments, the destination nodes represent dairy factories and the characteristic data in the data property of the destination nodes may include processor characteristic data such as product categories (e.g., categories of perishable food products)...In some such embodiments, the edges represent vehicle routes (i.e., roads, highways, etc.) and the characteristic data in the data property of the edges may include transport characteristic data such as travel distance, height and/or weight restrictions, tolls, steep grades, road construction or road closures, etc; [0156] Edges 506A represent travel routes between the connected pair of nodes, which may include one or more roads, highways, etc. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 10, Ericsson et al does not disclose the following however Luo discloses:
wherein providing the information comprises providing the information via at least one programming interface to a respective information database or to a respective web server that has the information in each case, ([0212] Computer readable program instructions for carrying out operations of the present invention may be assembler instructions, instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine instructions, machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions, state-setting data, configuration data for integrated circuitry, or either source code or object code written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Smalltalk, C++, or the like, and procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The computer readable program instructions may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 11, Ericsson et al does not disclose the following however Luo discloses:
displaying the determined respective resource consumption, the determined respective
transportation duration, or the determined respective resource consumption and the determined respective transportation duration of the first transportation route of the product on a display device, ([0192] In the illustrated embodiment, the A-Star module 808 outputs optimal delivery routes may be stored as delivery routes data, for example in the database 418 (shown in FIG. 4). The selected paths output by the A-Star module 808 represent respective delivery routes stored in the database 418. The delivery route data may include information such as the source node, a destination node, and any nodes between the source and destination nodes, including characteristic data associated with the nodes. The delivery route data may also include data identifying a transport vehicle to be used, load amounts of food items on a per-category basis, start time/date, distances along the route, and any other information that may be helpful for communicating the requirements and other information about the route to the driver or other interested parties. This data is output to the reporting module 416; [0116] In some such embodiments, the destination nodes represent dairy factories and the characteristic data in the data property of the destination nodes may include processor characteristic data such as product categories (e.g., categories of perishable food products) processed by the dairy factory, intake limits for the respective product categories, as well as location, hours of operation, point of contact information, and so on. In some such embodiments, the edges represent vehicle routes (i.e., roads, highways, etc.) and the characteristic data in the data property of the edges may include transport characteristic data such as travel distance, height and/or weight restrictions, tolls, steep grades, road construction or road closures, etc);
storing the determined respective resource consumption, the determined respective
transportation duration, or the determined respective resource consumption and the determined respective transportation duration of the first transportation route of the product together with information about the product in a product life cycle management database; or a combination thereof, ([0116] In some such embodiments, the destination nodes represent dairy factories and the characteristic data in the data property of the destination nodes may include processor characteristic data such as product categories (e.g., categories of perishable food products) processed by the dairy factory, intake limits for the respective product categories, as well as location, hours of operation, point of contact information, and so on. In some such embodiments, the edges represent vehicle routes (i.e., roads, highways, etc.) and the characteristic data in the data property of the edges may include transport characteristic data such as travel distance, height and/or weight restrictions, tolls, steep grades, road construction or road closures, etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 12, Ericsson et al does not disclose the following however Luo discloses:
displaying the respective point of origin on the display device; storing the respective point of origin in the product life cycle management database; or a combination thereof, ([0067], The selected paths output by the hybrid A-Star algorithm represent respective delivery routes stored in the database. The delivery route data may include information such as the source node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 13, Ericsson et al does not disclose the following however Luo discloses:
providing the product by the at least one transportation device according to the first
transportation route, (([0004] where the first path is a first candidate delivery route that includes loading a perishable food item at the first source node, traveling along the vehicle route represented by the first edge, and delivering the perishable food item at the first destination node...The embodiment also includes generating a route plan that includes a plurality of finalized delivery routes that provide for delivery of perishable food items from the source nodes to the destination nodes, the plurality of finalized delivery routes including the first finalized delivery route. Other embodiments of this aspect include corresponding computer systems, apparatus, and computer programs recorded on one or more computer storage devices, each configured to perform the actions of the embodiment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 14, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 15, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 16: wherein the at least one predeterminable condition is configured as an optimum of an objective function that takes into account the respective resource consumption with a first weighting factor and the respective transportation duration with a second weighting factor.
Please see the rejection of claim 2.
6. Claim(s) 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson et al’s “Optimizing route choice for lowest fuel consumption–Potential effects of a new driver support tool”, and further in view of Luo et al (US 20230259872 A), and further in view of SHI (CN 108470264 A).
As per claim 4, Ericsson et al’ does not disclose:
consumption comprises at least one form of...one form of material consumption, use of the respective transportation device, a greenhouse gas emission, or an expense, each of which is attributable to the transportation of the product,
However, Luo discloses: ([0040] The hybrid A-Star algorithm starts at a source node and uses a plurality of evaluation techniques to evaluate multiple path and transport options across multiple time periods. The evaluation techniques are based on the evaluation metrics determined by the process and combinations thereof. For n evaluation metrics, the process uses 2.sup.n−1 evaluation techniques. Thus, for the present embodiment that includes four evaluation metrics A, B, C, and D, the process uses fifteen evaluation techniques, where each evaluation technique includes a respective one of the following evaluation functions: [0041] f1: Transportation cost, A [0042] f2: Number of vehicles used, D [0043] f3: Degree of demand satisfaction, B [0044] f4: Extent of supply consumption, C [0045] f5: Extent of supply consumption/Number of vehicles used/Transportation cost, C/D/A [0046] f6: Extent of supply consumption/Transportation cost, C/A [0047] f7: Extent of supply consumption/Number of vehicles used, C/D [0048] f8: Number of vehicles used/Transportation cost, D/A [0049] f9: Degree of demand satisfaction/Transportation cost, B/A [0050] f10: Degree of demand satisfaction/Extent of supply consumption, B/C [0051] f11: Degree of demand satisfaction/Number of vehicles used, B/D [0052] f12: Extent of supply consumption/Degree of demand satisfaction/Transportation cost, C/B/A [0053] f13: Number of vehicles used/Degree of demand satisfaction/Transportation cost, D/B/A [0054] f14: Extent of supply consumption/Degree of demand satisfaction/Number of vehicles used, C/B/D [0055] f15: Number of vehicles used/Extent of supply consumption/Degree of demand satisfaction/Transportation cost, D/C/B/A);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Ericsson et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Ericsson et al’ does not disclose: energy consumption,
However, SHI discloses: “the transportation resources consumed comprises an electricity or fuel consumption, and so on.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by SHI in the systems of Luo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Claim(s) 3, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson et al’s “Optimizing route choice for lowest fuel consumption–Potential effects of a new driver support tool”, and further in view of Luo et al (US 20230259872 A), and further in view of FUTAMURA (JP 2021024722 A).
As per claim 3, Ericsson et al’ does not disclose:
wherein the respective transportation route comprises a plurality of transshipment points at which the product is transferred from one transportation device of the at least one transportation devices to another transportation device of the at least one transportation device.
HOWEVR, FUTAMURA (JP 2021024722 A) discloses: “As described above, the delivery item moving step S1 for moving the delivery item 4 from the transportation device 1 to the drone delivery area 3 provided above the stop 2 (upper floor), and the load for loading the delivery item 4 into the drone 5. By including the loading process S2 and the delivery process S3 for delivering the delivery 4 to the delivery destination using the drone 5, the delivery 4 carried by the transportation device 1 is transshipped to another transportation device and aggregated in the distribution center. It is possible to sort the delivered deliverables 4 at the drone delivery place 3 and quickly deliver them to the delivery destination without causing them to do so”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by FUTAMURA in the systems of Luo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 17: wherein the respective transportation route comprises a plurality of transshipment points at which the product is transferred from one transportation device of the at least one transportation devices to another transportation device of the at least one transportation device.
Please see the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 18: wherein the respective resource consumption comprises at least one form of energy consumption, one form of material consumption, use of the respective transportation device, a greenhouse gas emission, or an expense, each of which is attributable to the transportation of the product.
Please see the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson et al’s “Optimizing route choice for lowest fuel consumption–Potential effects of a new driver support tool”, and further in view of Luo et al (US 20230259872 A), and further in view of GUAN et al (CN 106156377 A).
As per claim 7, Ericsson et al’ does not disclose:
wherein the predeterminable time is a number of years in the future,
However, Luo discloses: (Service Level Agreement (SLA) planning and fulfillment 85 provide pre-arrangement for, and procurement of, cloud computing resources for which a future requirement is anticipated in accordance with an SLA);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Luo in the systems of Luo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Ericsson et al’ does not disclose:
wherein a scaling into the future is carried out for the respective resource consumption based on at least one macroeconomic parameter, and wherein the respective macroeconomic parameter takes into account an increase in productivity, progress in terms of productivity, an inflation rate, a gross domestic product, or purchasing power parity.
However, GUAN et al (CN 106156377 A) discloses: (“At present, our country strategic mineral resources such as copper, gold foreign dependence is always high, especially copper, iron and other mineral substance dependence are more than 50%. future 10-20 years, key process of urbanization in the industrial development of our country, will continue increasing energy resource consumption and demand contradiction will be further intensified. and heavy demand of mineral resource, but also international market price greatly rising period, according to the expert prediction 21 century resource price will continue in the new operation. Therefore, the country proposed increasing geological survey, domestic foothold and improve strategic decision of geological mineral working to guarantee capability of the national economic and social development”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by GUAN et al in the systems of Luo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 8, Ericsson et al’ does not disclose:
wherein the respective macroeconomic parameter takes into account the increase in productivity, the progress in terms of productivity, the inflation rate, the gross domestic product, or the purchasing power parity along the respective transportation route of the product.
However, GUAN et al (CN 106156377 A) discloses:
At present, our country strategic mineral resources such as copper, gold foreign dependence is always high, especially copper, iron and other mineral substance dependence are more than 50%. future 10-20 years, key process of urbanization in the industrial development of our country, will continue increasing energy resource consumption and demand contradiction will be further intensified. and heavy demand of mineral resource, but also international market price greatly rising period, according to the expert prediction 21 century resource price will continue in the new operation. Therefore, the country proposed increasing geological survey, domestic foothold and improve strategic decision of geological mineral working to guarantee capability of the national economic and social development.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by GUAN et al in the systems of Luo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
February 26, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628