Requirement for Information under 37 CFR § 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
The instant application includes an equation in claims 5 and 14. Information is requested regarding such equation. Is the claimed equation based upon the work of others, or simply the product of the Applicant’s invention?
The equation of claims 5 and 14 is directed towards a function for determining an indicator of demand (DD). Although the broader concept of determining an indicator of demand based on the vector functions is old and well known in the art, claims 5 and 14 of the instant application discloses a specific manner of doing this by summing the weighted first efficiency measure, the weighted second efficiency measure and weighted cosine of the angle. The information requested by the Examiner is required in order to complete the background description in the disclosure by documenting methods of determining the net benefit of a customer order known by those of ordinary skill in the art.
The information is required to document the level of skill and knowledge in the art of analyzing product portfolio in production management.
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication, text, or relevant material, that any of the applicants relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the applicant’s invention, particularly as to developing the equations of claims 5 and 14. For each document provided, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter.
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, therequirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide theparticular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subjectmatter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant's disclosure.
The fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action, which is three (3) months.
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 and preliminary amendment filed on January 16, 2025. Claims 3-4, 9, 12-13 and 15-18 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-18 are pending, Claims 1, 10 and 18 are independent.
Priority
Applicant claims the priority of a Foreign Patent application No. SG 10202250505M, filed on July 18, 2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 and 04/07/2025 appear to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification file on 01/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length exceeds the maximum allowable number of words as specified in 37 CFR 1.72(b). The abstract in an application filed under 35 U.S.C 111 may not exceed 150 words in length, and the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said" should be avoided. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the United States patent and Trademark Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. Correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings from Fig. 2 to Fig. 5 are objected because they are fuzzy/illegible; the labels 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 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 10-17 recite a system comprising “a module configured to”, which is 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 module configured to” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder with functional language “a module configured to:” determine a first efficiency measure between the first source and the second source, determine a second efficiency measure between the first destination and the second destination, associate the first destination with the first source to form a first order pair and the second destination with the second source to form a second order pair, determine a first vector associated with the first order pair, and a second vector associated with the second order pair, measure an angle between the first vector and the second vector, calculate the indicator of demand based on a function…, and calculate a cosine of the angle to derive an indication of directional homogeneity between the first order pair and the second order pair. 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 10-17 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 10-17, 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 claim recites the following limitations: 1) “a module configured to:” determine a first efficiency measure between the first source and the second source, determine a second efficiency measure between the first destination and the second destination, associate the first destination with the first source to form a first order pair and the second destination with the second source to form a second order pair, determine a first vector associated with the first order pair, and a second vector associated with the second order pair, measure an angle between the first vector and the second vector, calculate the indicator of demand based on a function…, and calculate a cosine of the angle to derive an indication of directional homogeneity between the first order pair and the second order pair are directed to specialized functions for determining a first efficiency measure, determining a second efficiency measure,…calculating a cosine of angle, and thus the functions 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.
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 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 1-9 are directed to a method for providing an indicator of demand without tied to a particular machine for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. However, claims 1-9 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution. Claims 10-17 are directed to a system comprising limitations 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 a system comprising software per se, which is not fall within the four statutory categories. However, claims 10-17 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution. Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
With respect to claims 1-9, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims are directed to a method without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
With respect to claims 10-17, as understood, claim 10 recites as a system without positive recitation of a physical structure in the body for performing the steps 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 tangible 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 (processor) 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 the method as representative, claim 1 recites limitations of “determining a first efficiency measure between a first source and a second source, determining a second efficiency measure between a first destination and a second destination, associating the first destination with the first source to form a first order pair and the second destination with the second source to form a second order pair, determining a first vector associated with the first order pair, and a second vector associated with the second order pair, measuring an angle between the first vector and the second vector, calculating the indicator of demand based on a function of the first efficiency measure, the second efficiency measure, and the angle”, dependent claims 2-9 recite limitations of “calculating a cosine of the angle to derive an indication of directional homogeneity between the first order pair and the second order pair, normalizing the first efficiency measure and/or the second efficiency measure, summing the DD value, estimating a batching efficiency based on the indication of demand density”. 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 of “determining a first efficiency measure between a first source and a second source, determining a second efficiency measure between a first destination and a second destination, associating the first destination with the first source to form a first order pair and the second destination with the second source to form a second order pair, determining a first vector associated with the first order pair, and a second vector associated with the second order pair, measuring an angle between the first vector and the second vector, and estimate a batching efficiency based on the indication of demand density”, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually determining, measuring and calculating the indicator of demand in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, the claims fall within the mental processes grouping. Further, the limitations of “calculating the indicator of demand using the mathematical expression: DD=w1 * first efficiency measure + w2 * second efficiency measure + w3 * cosine of the angle, and calculating a cosine of the angle to derive an indication of directional homogeneity between the first order pair and the second order pair” are mathematical concepts include mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationship, mathematical formulas, and calculations, which fall within the abstract idea of mathematical relationships/formulas grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite one or more abstract ideas, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite no additional elements for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 1 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors” and “a computer-readable storage medium” as recited in claim 18. The Specification describes that “memory may be understood as a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which data or information can be stored for retrieval. References to “memory” included herein may be understood as referring to volatile or non-volatile memory, including random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), flash memory…, it is appreciated the registers, shift registers, processors registers, data buffers, etc.,” (see ¶ 40). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional element is no more than generic computer and is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the additional element of a processor (if recited) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, 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, the claims recite no additional elements for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 1 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors” and “a computer-readable storage medium” as recited in claim 18. The Specification describes that “memory may be understood as a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which data or information can be stored for retrieval. References to “memory” included herein may be understood as referring to volatile or non-volatile memory, including random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), flash memory…, it is appreciated the registers, shift registers, processors registers, data buffers, etc.,” (see ¶ 40). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional element is no more than generic computer and is recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the computing system (one or more processors), at best, may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information 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. Again, reciting the additional element of one or more processors is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See 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); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the manipulation of information through a series of mental steps and a mathematical calculation, was held directed to an abstract idea)). 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 1-9 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other system claims 10-17 and medium claim 18 and parallel claims 1-9—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 1-3, 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bain et al., (WO 2018/148732, hereinafter: Bain), and in view of Lee, (CN 101689889 B), and further in view of Nakano et al., (US 2011/0208422, hereinafter: Nakano).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding claim 1, Bain discloses a method for providing an indicator of demand (see ¶ 81-83) comprising the steps of:
associating the first destination with the first source to form a first order pair and the second destination with the second source to form a second order pair (see ¶ 28, ¶ 42, ¶ 276, ¶ 447); and
calculating the indicator of demand based on a function of the first efficiency measure, the second efficiency measure, and the angle (see ¶ 81, ¶ 83-88, ¶ 229, ¶ 92, ¶ 479, claim 113).
Bain discloses calculating an estimate consumer demand indicated by a consumer energy marketplace through which a source of raw energy for allocation includes calculating for a plurality of future time intervals, the position for the consumer relative to similar consumers is based on a distance to other users in a cluster from multiple nodes for each user that represents weighted attributes of the user and the facilitate determining a distance between nodes, and data representing energy usage for a plurality of consumers includes energy efficiency measures of one home relative to another home (see 105-107, ¶ 229, ¶ 237).
Bain does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Lee in an analogous art for transmitting power from a source station to a destination station discloses
determining a first efficiency measure between a first source and a second source, each source associated with at least one good or service (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 17-19);
determining a second efficiency measure between a first destination and a second destination (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 17-19).
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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, leading to a more specific result. 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.
Lee discloses a power vector for controlling or regulating the transmission power or transmission rate of message format (see ¶ 57).
Bain and Lee do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Nakano in an analogous art for determining a plurality of distance trajectory points discloses
determining a first vector associated with the first order pair, and a second vector associated with the second order pair (see ¶ 79, ¶ 90, claim 3);
measuring an angle between the first vector and the second vector (see ¶ 79, ¶ 90).
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 Bain and in view of Lee to include the teaching of Nakano in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, 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, Bain discloses a the position for the consumer relative to similar consumers is based on a distance to other users in a cluster from multiple nodes for each user that represents weighted attributes of the user and the facilitate determining a distance between nodes (see ¶ 123, claim 178).
Bain does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first efficiency measure is a distance between the first source and the second source or a time taken to travel between the first source and the second source (see ¶ 15, ¶ 19, claim 4). 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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, leading to a more specific result. 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 2 merely describes the characteristics of the first efficiency measure 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 3, Bain discloses a the position for the consumer relative to similar consumers is based on a distance to other users in a cluster from multiple nodes for each user that represents weighted attributes of the user and the facilitate determining a distance between nodes (see ¶ 123, claim 178).
Bain does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second efficiency measure is a distance between the first destination and the second destination or a time taken to travel between the first destination and the second destination (see ¶ 12, ¶ 18). 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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, leading to a more specific result. 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 3 merely describes the characteristics of the second efficiency measure 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 10, Bain discloses a system for determining an indicator of demand for a good or service (see ¶ 81-83) comprising:
at least one location-based sensor for sensing the location of a first source, a second source, a first destination and/or a second destination (see ¶ 247, ¶ 407);
a module arranged in data communication with the at least one location- based sensor (see ¶ 93, ¶ 371), the module configured to:
associate the first destination with the first source to form a first order pair and the second destination with the second source to form a second order pair (see ¶ 28, ¶ 42, ¶ 276, ¶ 447);
calculate the indicator of demand based on a function of the first efficiency measure, the second efficiency measure, and the angle (see ¶ 81, ¶ 83-88, ¶ 229, ¶ 92, ¶ 479, claim 113).
Bain discloses calculating an estimate consumer demand indicated by a consumer energy marketplace through which a source of raw energy for allocation includes calculating for a plurality of future time intervals, the position for the consumer relative to similar consumers is based on a distance to other users in a cluster from multiple nodes for each user that represents weighted attributes of the user and the facilitate determining a distance between nodes, and data representing energy usage for a plurality of consumers includes energy efficiency measures of one home relative to another home (see 105-107, ¶ 229, ¶ 237).
Bain does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Lee in an analogous art for transmitting power from a source station to a destination station discloses
determine a first efficiency measure between the first source and the second source, each source associated with at least one good or service (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 17-19);
determine a second efficiency measure between the first destination and the second destination (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 17-19).
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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, leading to a more specific result. 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.
Lee discloses a power vector for controlling or regulating the transmission power or transmission rate of message format (see ¶ 57).
Bain and Lee do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Nakano in an analogous art for determining a plurality of distance trajectory points discloses
determine a first vector associated with the first order pair, and a second vector associated with the second order pair (see ¶ 79, ¶ 90, claim 3);
measure an angle between the first vector and the second vector (see ¶ 79, ¶ 90).
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 Bain and in view of Lee to include the teaching of Nakano in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, 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 11, Bain discloses a the position for the consumer relative to similar consumers is based on a distance to other users in a cluster from multiple nodes for each user that represents weighted attributes of the user and the facilitate determining a distance between nodes (see ¶ 123, claim 178).
Bain does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lee discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the first efficiency measure is a distance between the first source and the second source or a time taken to travel between the first source and the second source (see ¶ 123, claim 178). 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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, leading to a more specific result. 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 11 merely describes the characteristics of the first efficiency measure 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 12, Bain discloses a the position for the consumer relative to similar consumers is based on a distance to other users in a cluster from multiple nodes for each user that represents weighted attributes of the user and the facilitate determining a distance between nodes (see ¶ 123, claim 178).
Bain does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lee discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the second efficiency measure is a distance between the first destination and the second destination or a time taken to travel between the first destination and the second destination (see ¶ 12, ¶ 18). 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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, leading to a more specific result. 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 12 merely describes the characteristics of the second efficiency measure 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 18, Bain discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute a method for providing an indicator of demand (see ¶ 251) comprising:
associating the first destination with the first source to form a first order pair and the second destination with the second source to form a second order pair (see ¶ 28, ¶ 42, ¶ 276, ¶ 447);
calculating the indicator of demand based on a function of the first efficiency measure, the second efficiency measure, and the angle (see ¶ 81, ¶ 83-88, ¶ 229, ¶ 92, ¶ 479, claim 113).
Bain discloses calculating an estimate consumer demand indicated by a consumer energy marketplace through which a source of raw energy for allocation includes calculating for a plurality of future time intervals, the position for the consumer relative to similar consumers is based on a distance to other users in a cluster from multiple nodes for each user that represents weighted attributes of the user and the facilitate determining a distance between nodes, and data representing energy usage for a plurality of consumers includes energy efficiency measures of one home relative to another home (see 105-107, ¶ 229, ¶ 237).
Bain does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Lee in an analogous art for transmitting power from a source station to a destination station discloses
determining a first efficiency measure between a first source and a second source, each source associated with at least one good or service (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 17-19);
determining a second efficiency measure between a first destination and a second destination (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 17-19).
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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, leading to a more specific result. 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.
Lee discloses a power vector for controlling or regulating the transmission power or transmission rate of message format (see ¶ 57).
Bain and Lee do not explicitly the following limitations; however, Nakano in an analogous art for determining a plurality of distance trajectory points discloses
determining a first vector associated with the first order pair, and a second vector associated with the second order pair (see ¶ 79, ¶ 90, claim 3);
measuring an angle between the first vector and the second vector (see ¶ 79, ¶ 90).
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 Bain and in view of Lee to include the teaching of Nakano in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, 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.
Claims 4-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bain and in view of Lee and Nakano as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Zhang et al., (CN 115375219, hereinafter: Zhang).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding claim 4, Bain, Lee and Nakano do not explicitly the following limitations, however, Zhang in an analogous art of inventory management system discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of calculating a cosine of the angle to derive an indication of directional homogeneity between the first order pair and the second order pair (see pg. 9, ¶ 2). 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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional layer of mathematical analysis, 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 5, Bain, Lee and Nakano do not explicitly the following limitations, however, Zhang discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the indicator of demand (DD) is expressed mathematically as:
DD = w1 * first efficiency measure + w2 * second efficiency measure + w3 * cosine of the angle
wherein w1, w2 and w3 are weights and the summation of wl+w2+w3 = 1.
(see pg. 12, ¶ 4-5).
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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional layer of mathematical analysis, 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 6, Bain discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising the step of normalizing the first efficiency measure and/or the second efficiency measure, plotting the DD against the first normalized efficiency measure and/or the second normalized efficiency measure over a pre-determined time period, and determining a point of inflexion on the plot corresponding to the first efficiency measure at a value of 1 (see ¶ 29, ¶ 43, ¶ 277).
Regarding claim 7, Bain discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising the step of summing the DD values and averaging the summed DD value over a parameter to provide an indication of demand density (see ¶ 29-30, ¶ 43, ¶ 277, ¶ 354, ¶ 369, ¶ 397).
Regarding claim 8, Bain discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the parameter is selected from at least one of the following: a location, a merchant, a consumer, and a time period (see ¶ 26-28, ¶ 74, ¶ 348-349).
Regarding claim 9, Bain discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising the step of estimating a batching efficiency based on the indication of demand density (see ¶ 61, ¶ 105, ¶ 114).
Regarding claim 13, Lee and Nakano do not explicitly the following limitations, however, Zhang discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the module is further configured to calculate a cosine of the angle to derive an indication of directional homogeneity between the first order pair and the second order pair (see pg. 9, ¶ 2). 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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional layer of mathematical analysis, 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 14, Bain, Lee and Nakano do not explicitly the following limitations, however, discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the indicator of demand (DD) is expressed mathematically as:
DD = w1 *first efficiency measure + w2 * second efficiency measure + w3 * cosine of the angle wherein w1, w2 and w3 are weights and the summation of w1 + w2 + w3 = 1.
(see pg. 12, ¶ 4-5).
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 Bain to include the teaching of Lee in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional layer of mathematical analysis, 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 15, Bain discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the location-based sensor is a GPS sensor in a vehicle (see ¶ 420, ¶ 428).
Regarding claim 16, Bain discloses the system of claim 10, further forming part of an electronic delivery system or a vehicle-on demand platform (see ¶ 69, ¶ 248).
Regarding claim 17, Bain discloses the system of claim10, wherein the module in arranged in data communication with a map service to obtain map data to determine the distance or time between the first source second source, first destination and second destination (see ¶ 123, ¶ 339, ¶ 420, claim 178).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kira (US 6317656 B1) discloses a system for monitoring power demand of the prime mover of the system to provide the flow rate data of the material.
JI et al., (CN 105894236) discloses a system for monitoring quality of drinking water and drinking water supply chain order house.
Choi et al., (US 2018/0114082) discloses a system for calculating a first quality measurement value by using the first codec metadata and calculating a second quality measurement value by using the second codec metadata.
Lee et al., (KR 101328646 B1) discloses a method for calculating an index of demand using a first matrix generated based on the input information related to importance of consumer demands and a second matrix generated based on the input information about the degree of correlation between description elements.
Chew et al., “Fast and Efficient Algorithms in Computational Electromagnetics”, Artech House, Inc., London, 2001.
Beatrice “Assessment of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Quality Certification and Origin-Labeling in Fruit Salad in Kigali Rwanda”, Thesis submitted to the board of postgraduate studies, University of Nairobi, July 2014.
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