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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 7 recites the limitation the content. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiency.
In addition, with respect to claims 1 and 7, it is unclear if the resource in the claims is the same as the content. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the content and the resource to be the same. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-7 are directed to method and device comprising a processor.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-7 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 7 recite the limitations of
receiving resource registration information of registering a resource; assigning a container quantity of the container to be distributed in a distribution network, in accordance with the resource registration information; converting container distribution information to a value medium, the container distribution information being based on data collected through distribution of the container in the container quantity, the container being filled with the content, and the container being distributed in the distribution network; and generating resource distribution information of distributing the resource, by allocating the value medium on the basis of the resource registration information.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving, assigning, converting, generating, and allocating data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of processor, the claim language encompasses simply receiving resource registration information, assigning a container quantity, converting container distribution information to a value medium, generating resource distribution information which includes the step of allocating information. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, a user is able to receive information and perform the step of assigning. A user is also able to convert information and generate information without the use of a computer. The claimed invention is merely automating a manual pr1ocess.
The claims also deal with container resource management which deals with sales as seen in para 0002 and 0028 in Applicant’s specification. The Applicant’s drawings also show interactions between multiple people in fig. 1. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, interactions between people). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of device and processor.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe details about the container such as the type of container. In addition, the dependent claims further recite additional abstract idea steps such as collecting data.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 7 recites device and processor.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general-purpose computer in para 0027.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0027. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gottlieb (US20080077464A1).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 7, Gottlieb teaches
A computer implemented method…for processing a resource in exchange for a container (See process-The process may include an optimization process to generate the most cost-effective use of the available vehicle combinations.) This shows a process/method and this is done on a computer as seen in fig. 6. Claim 1 of the prior art also states method. The method processes resource information such as product information in exchange for a transportation plan that includes vehicle/trailers (i.e. containers). (See para 0028 and para 0046)(See fig. 5). Examiner interprets container to be anything that carries product.
A container resource management device comprising a processor configured execute operations comprising (See para 0043-The instructions may be executed or the data structures loaded by a set of processors 215. The set of processors may utilize a system memory 233.) This shows a processor. System is shown in figure 2a and 2b.
receiving resource registration information of registering a resource (See para 0038-In one embodiment, the incoming sales and inventory data may be processed by a demand determination module 227. Demand determination module 227 may utilize the data supplied by target location node 221 to generate a set of demand orders that may be stored in a demand order module 205. In one embodiment, incoming demand data may include various types of data, such as demand related to special promotions, demand for common product restocking or similar data) This teaches receiving resource registration information such as incoming sales, inventory, and demand data for a product (i.e. resource). This information is used to register a product (i.e. resource) to be shipped in the supply chain network to personnel who need the product such as a retailer as seen in para 0039.
assigning a container quantity of the container to be distributed in a distribution network, in accordance with the resource registration information The system tries to determine the optimal vehicle/trailer combination with respect to the incoming product data (i.e. resource registration information). Vehicle/trailer correspond to the container since they carry the products to the destination. (See para 0030- the utilization of the capacity of a vehicle combination for shipping the products from the source location to the target location and the types and capacity of the compartments and trailers used in the vehicle combination) (See para 0042-Compartment determination module 251 may determine whether a set of products of a transportation order tentatively assigned to a vehicle or a trailer can be loaded into the compartments of the respective vehicle or trailer while meeting the constraints of these compartments and the products in the transportation order. ) (See para 0048-The compartment determination module 251 may process transportation orders one at a time as it determines the assignment of transportation orders to compartments using a compartment configuration data structure.) This shows assigning a container quantity such as assigning a trailer/vehicle with certain quantity to be used. This can also mean assigning a quantity within the vehicle/trailer such as a compartment to put the products in for shipment. The vehicle/trailer are then sent out for shipment in the supply chain network (i.e. distribution network). (See para 0005). This assignment is with respect to receiving the incoming resource registration information as taught above.
converting container distribution information to a value medium, the container distribution information being based on data collected through distribution of the container in the container quantity, the container being filled with the content, and the container being distributed in the distribution network (See para 0055-In one embodiment, generated transportation plans may be evaluated by the cost evaluator 307. In one embodiment, the cost evaluator 307 may employ a total cost function to characterize a transportation plan. The total cost function associates a total cost value with the evaluated transportation plan.) The system generates container distribution information (i.e. transportation plan). The system then converters it to a value medium such as a cost. Value medium is any value assigned. The transportation plan is based on the data about the products and the combination of vehicle/trailer as well as their compartments that will be used.(i.e. data collected through distribution of the container in the container quantity). The transportation plan is also based on loading the contents and shipping them since that is the whole purpose of the system to optimize this plan to carryout these actions. Examiner interprets the content to the be the resource as already taught above.
and generating resource distribution information of distributing the resource, by allocating the value medium on the basis of the resource registration information. (See para 0082- In one embodiment, after a least cost configuration or transportation plan has been selected, the transportation plan may be optimized for vehicle activities using the routing move operation (block 511). The activities may be optimized on a vehicle combination by vehicle combination basis. In one embodiment, any search or heuristic may be used in combination with the routing method or within the routing method to optimize the routing. In another embodiment, the routing method may be applied to multiple vehicle combinations. ) (See fig. 5) This shows resource distribution information is generated which corresponds to optimized routing information. This was done by allocating the value medium (i.e. transportation plan cost) on the basis of the product data that was incoming as seen above which was used to generate the transportation plan.
Regarding claim 2, Gottlieb further teaches
wherein the assigning further comprises selecting a type of the container to be distributed in the distribution network in accordance with the resource registration information. (See para 0021- The trailers may have any type of attachment or movement mechanism. The trailers may be designed to couple to specific types or models of vehicles or other trailers. For example, a trailer 109 may be designed to couple directly to a vehicle 105. A trailer 111 may be designed to couple to other trailers 109 having the same movement mechanism. For example, trailers with tires 109, 111 may be used together, but not with a trailer 115 that is designed for rails. Trailers and vehicles may have numerous characteristics that restrict their ability to be combined with one another. Restrictions may be related to the size, mode of transportation, coupling mechanism, range, capacity and similar characteristics. In some cases, restrictions may be greater on a vehicle combination than on the constituent parts of the vehicle combination. ) This shows selecting a type of vehicle/trailer (i.e. container) to distributed to the supply chain network with respect product demand data that is received.
Regarding claim 3, Gottlieb further teaches
wherein the assigning further comprises selecting a type of the content that is to fill the container to be distributed in the distribution network in accordance with the resource registration information. (See para 0031- The determination of the vehicle schedule may include a simulation of building a load (e.g., a shipment of products) in a vehicle combination. The building of a load may involve consideration of the size, weight, product types and similar characteristics of a shipment. The loading of the shipment into a vehicle combination may be required to meet a set of constraints. For example, the vehicle combination may have a weight limit and a volume limit, certain products may not be properly shipped in the same vehicle, trailer or vehicle combination as other products and similar shipping constraints may be a part of the loading simulation. This simulated load may also be applied to trailers within a vehicle combination. Each trailer may have weight, volume, pallet limits or similar capacity limits. Some trailers, vehicles and vehicle combinations may have restrictions on the type of products that can be shipped within them (e.g., an open trailer may not store items that cannot withstand exposure to weather or changes in temperature).) This shows the type of contents/products are also determined when building a load for the vehicle/container (i.e. container).
Regarding claim 4, Gottlieb further teaches
wherein the converting further comprises converting the container distribution information into the value medium on the basis of the conversion condition maximizing the value medium (See 0044- In one embodiment, the transportation determination module 203 may attempt to create “full” loads by maximizing the utilization of the capacity of a set of vehicle combinations and each vehicle and trailer in each vehicle combination used for shipping. Maximizing the utilization of a set of vehicle combinations and their vehicles and trailers can reduce the per item or unit shipping costs) (See para 0081- If the iterations have completed then the process may select the least costly transportation plan that was analyzed (block 509)) This shows the cost evaluator converts the transportation plan into value medium of cost to maximize this number with respect to savings and utilization.
in response to receiving a plurality of conversion candidate conditions for converting the container distribution information into the value medium. This is based on a plurality of conversion candidates (e.g. best improving/first improving) the system has but the user selects the cost one as seen here (See para 0081-0082- In further embodiments, other selections schemes may be utilized including best improving, best non-deteriorating, first improving, first non-deteriorating, worst move or similar selection schemes. In one embodiment, after a least cost configuration or transportation plan has been selected).
Regarding claim 6, Gottlieb teaches
further comprising: collecting, as the collected data, container state data indicating a state when the container of the container quantity is distributed in the distribution network; (See para 0021- The trailers may have any type of attachment or movement mechanism. The trailers may be designed to couple to specific types or models of vehicles or other trailers. For example, a trailer 109 may be designed to couple directly to a vehicle 105. A trailer 111 may be designed to couple to other trailers 109 having the same movement mechanism. For example, trailers with tires 109, 111 may be used together, but not with a trailer 115 that is designed for rails. Trailers and vehicles may have numerous characteristics that restrict their ability to be combined with one another)(See para 0021- There may be a one-to-many relationship between vehicles and trailers such as a truck with a set of trailers 117 or a many to many relationship between the vehicles and trailers such as a train with multiple engines and box cars 119. Vehicle combinations may have various relationships with the different types of vehicles and trailers.) This shows the system collects and analyzes data regarding vehicle/trailer state (i.e. container state) such as plurality of characteristics of the container.
and generating the container distribution information by performing data analysis processing on the collected data. Based on the data collected about the state of the containers and analyzing this data, the system generates container distribution information such as the transportation plan to ship the products.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottlieb (US20080077464A1) in further view of Joshi (20090037348).
Regarding claim 5, Gottlieb teaches the limitations of claim 1, however Gottlieb doesn’t teach
wherein the generating the resource distribution information further comprises allocating a post-cost-deduction value medium, the post-cost-deduction value medium being obtained by subtracting a cost-equivalent value medium equivalent to at least a part of a cost required for the distribution of the containers
However Joshi teaches wherein the generating the resource distribution information further comprises allocating a post-cost-deduction value medium, the post-cost-deduction value medium being obtained by subtracting a cost-equivalent value medium equivalent to at least a part of a cost required for the distribution of the containers (See para 0059- The premium freight cost of the shipment due to use of the non-optimal mode is calculated by subtracting the cost of a shipment using the optimal mode from the actual cost of the shipment. ) This teaches a post cost deduction value medium which corresponds to the premium freight cost. The premium freight cost is determined by subtracting cost equivalent value medium (i.e. cost of shipment with optimal route) from at least a part of the cost required for distributing/shipping the container (i.e. actual cost to shipment). Examiner interprets the actual cost of the shipment to correspond part of the cost since this not the total cost as also taught in para 0059.
Gottlieb already teaches from the value medium converted by the conversion (See para 0055-In one embodiment, generated transportation plans may be evaluated by the cost evaluator 307. In one embodiment, the cost evaluator 307 may employ a total cost function to characterize a transportation plan. The total cost function associates a total cost value with the evaluated transportation plan.) The system generates container distribution information (i.e. transportation plan). The system then converters it to a value medium such as a cost.
Gottlieb and Joshi are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of cargo/freight shipment and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gottlieb’s invention by incorporating the method of Joshi because Gottlieb would also be able to determine premium costs for the transportation plan. This would let the user of Gottlieb know premium costs of shipping and determine if the transportation plan with the lowest cost is actually the lowest when compared to the premium costs. This would make the system of Gottlieb more sophisticated since this would add an additional criteria to compare transportation costs with.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ames (US8010220B1) Discloses a parts delivery management system and method that synchronizes production line side parts deliveries with a production schedule to facilitate delivering the right part to the right production line location at the right time.
Singh (US20220156693A1) Discloses a system and method for developing optimized cargo transportation solutions. The system may include a number of different modules (programs) that may be executed individually, or in series when an exemplary system includes the programs operating sequentially.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights