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 .
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-5 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) (mathematical relationships/formulas, mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity). Specifically the independent claims recite:
(a) mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitations of present delivery schedule information and present more detailed delivery schedule information which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a controller nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the a controller configured to language, the claim encompasses the user manually presenting delivery schedule information. The mere nominal recitation of a generic controller does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process.
(c) certain methods of organizing human activity: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method that allows for presenting a delivery schedule for two time periods which is directed to commercial interactions associated with sales activities or behaviors. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People According to the 2019 PEG, “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 5, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 3, 4, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is an apparatus comprising “a controller configured to.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a generic processing device in its ordinary capacity and merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or present data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 5, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 introduces the additional element of “wherein the controller is configured to present a plurality of panels indicating a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or present data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 4 introduces the additional element of “wherein the controller is configured to present an image showing the vehicle according to a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or present data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is an apparatus comprising “a controller configured to.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a generic processing device in its ordinary capacity and merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or present data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 5, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3 introduces the additional element of “wherein the controller is configured to present a plurality of panels indicating a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 4 introduces the additional element of “wherein the controller is configured to present an image showing the vehicle according to a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barts et al. (US 20020082893 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barts teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to (¶ 36, 809-811, discloses the claimed technology);
present, in a first time period, delivery schedule information for a vehicle before delivery at a dealer (¶ 61, discloses tracking the vehicle based on a planned schedule. ¶ 147, discloses anticipated delivery scheduling. ¶ 210, discloses an on-schedule for delivery indicator. ¶ 534-536, discloses originally planned delivery dates. ¶ 282-285, disclose various reports. ¶ 745, discloses daily routing process plans. ¶ 156, 763, See also Fig. 21-24, 26.);
and present, in a second time period after the first time period, delivery schedule detail information that is more detailed than the delivery schedule information (¶ 40, discloses updating a delivery network. ¶ 521-522, discloses various scheduled report views. ¶ 527-533, discloses various dealer report views. ¶ 567-576, discloses vehicle status updates. ¶ 753. See also Fig. 21-24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 42-43).
Regarding claim 2, Barts teaches wherein the first time period is during a first predetermined period from when the vehicle is transported from a manufacturing plant to the dealer (¶ 61, discloses tracking the vehicle based on a planned schedule. ¶ 147, discloses anticipated delivery scheduling. ¶ 210, discloses an on-schedule for delivery indicator. ¶ 534-536, discloses originally planned delivery dates. ¶ 282-285, disclose various reports. ¶ 745, discloses daily routing process plans. ¶ 156, 763, See also Fig. 21-24, 26.);
and the second time period is during a second predetermined period prior to a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule information (¶ 40, discloses updating a delivery network. ¶ 521-522, discloses various scheduled report views. ¶ 527-533, discloses various dealer report views. ¶ 567-576, discloses vehicle status updates. ¶ 753. See also Fig. 21-24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 42-43).
Regarding claim 5, Barts teaches wherein the delivery schedule detail information includes information pertaining to a number of vehicles waiting to be delivered (¶ 424, discloses a total quantity of vehicles on hold to be delivered. ¶ 752. Fig. 19, 20, 28, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 41, discloses a total quantity of vehicles that are expected to arrive).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barts et al. (US 20020082893 A1) in view of Balok et al. (US 20090313072 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Barts teaches wherein the controller is configured to present a plurality of panels indicating delivery schedule detail information (¶ 40, discloses updating a delivery network. ¶ 521-522, discloses various scheduled report views. ¶ 527-533, discloses various dealer report views. ¶ 567-576, discloses vehicle status updates. ¶ 753. See also Fig. 21-24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 42-43).
Barts does not specifically teach a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.
However, Balok teaches a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information (¶ 44-45, disclose ETA in days for the estimated time of arrival for a vehicle to a dealer location. ¶ 43, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Barts to include/perform a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information, as taught/suggested by Balok. This known technique is applicable to the system of Barts as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering vehicles from a manufacturing plant to a dealership. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Balok would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Balok to the teachings of Barts would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such remaining days until delivery features into similar systems. Further, applying a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would lead to good customer service and improved cost management.
Regarding claim 4, Barts teaches wherein the controller is configured to present an image showing the vehicle according to delivery schedule detail information (¶ 40, discloses updating a delivery network. ¶ 521-522, discloses various scheduled report views. ¶ 527-533, discloses various dealer report views. ¶ 567-576, discloses vehicle status updates. ¶ 753. See also Fig. 21-24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 42-43).
Barts does not specifically teach a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.
However, Balok teaches according to a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information (¶ 44-45, disclose ETA in days for the estimated time of arrival for a vehicle to a dealer location. ¶ 43, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Barts to include/perform according to a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information, as taught/suggested by Balok. This known technique is applicable to the system of Barts as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering vehicles from a manufacturing plant to a dealership. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Balok would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Balok to the teachings of Barts would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such remaining days until delivery features into similar systems. Further, applying a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would lead to good customer service and improved cost management.
Other pertinent prior art includes Ajiki et al. (US 20070061226 A1) discloses a product inventory management system that includes a receiving management section for carrying out receiving management of products coming from a factory production line, an inventory section for stocking the products, and a shipping management section for carrying out shipping management of the products. Sone (US 7222081 B1) discloses delivery scheduling systems for continuously monitoring and updating a delivery schedule, and notifying a customer of a scheduled delivery. Jones (US 6975998 B1) which discloses a package delivery notification system and method for reporting when a vehicle is expected to deliver a package.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625