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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 have been cancelled.
Claims 20-38 have been added.
Claims 20-38 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 20-38 is/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.
Claim(s) 20 and 36 recite(s) a system and series of steps for controlling the flow of information regarding a pharmaceutical product, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘scanning the ID of the product…’; ‘providing location information identifying a location…’; ‘providing the location information… and utilizing the location information… as input data…’; ‘controlling the information flow by providing the subset of the data record…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 21-35, 37, and 38 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for controlling the flow of information regarding a pharmaceutical product, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a scanning device’, ‘a manufacturing Uniform Resource Locator (URL) portal address’, ‘a wireless logger device’, ‘an external computer’, ‘a locator provider’, ‘a computer device’, ‘a rule engine’, ‘a memory’, ‘a communication module’, ‘an external control computer’, ‘a processor’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a scanning device’, ‘a wireless logger device’, ‘an external computer’, ‘a locator provider’, ‘a computer device’, ‘a rule engine’, ‘a memory’, ‘a communication module’, ‘an external control computer’, ‘a processor’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘a manufacturing Uniform Resource Locator (URL) portal address’).
Additionally, the claims recite the additional elements of ‘a temperature sensor’ and ‘at least one measuring device’. These limitation are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data for later use), and amount to mere tools for data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The ‘temperature sensor’ and ‘measuring device’ are considered to be a well‐understood, routine, and conventional element previously known to the industry. The specification describes the sensor and device as equipment used to capture environmental related information, such as temperature or humidity (¶34, ¶38, ¶71), with no additional technical details on the operation of the elements. Thus, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 20-38 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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) 20-30 and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Self (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20070215685), in view of Sayers (U.S. Patent No. 8756124).
In regards to claim 20, Self teaches:
A method of controlling an information flow related to a product while transporting the product in a supply chain from a primary transport leg to a last-mile transport leg, where the product has an associated unique identifier (unique ID) (Self: ¶9, ¶37-39, ¶66-70, ¶72-75 disclose a system and method for controlling access to information regarding a transported product associated with a unique identifier), the method comprising:
scanning the ID of the product by use of a scanning device (Self: ¶35, ¶55-56, ¶67, ¶69 disclose scanning, via an image capturing device, the unique identifier of the product),
providing location information identifying a location where the scanning of the unique ID took place (Self: ¶71-74, ¶102 disclose receiving the location and/or identity of the scan),
accessing a manufacturing Uniform Resource Locator (URL) portal address related to the product for which the unique ID is scanned (Self: ¶35, ¶51, ¶56, ¶68-75).
Although Self teaches receiving the location of the scan and providing a specific portion of the product information to the user, the reference does not explicitly state utilizing the scan location information to determine the provided product information.
However, Self and Sayers together teach:
providing the location information to the URL (Self: ¶71-74, ¶102; Sayers: Col 15, Line 52 – Col 16, Line 8; Col 18, Line 53 – Col 19, Line 11) and utilizing the location information at the URL as input data in a process which defines a subset of a data record related to the product (Self: ¶71-74, ¶102; Sayers: Col 15, Line 52 – Col 16, Line 8; Col 18, Line 53 – Col 19, Line 11; Col. 20, Lines 27-38 disclose providing specific information to the user based on the geographic location of the scan, such as providing the information in an appropriate language), and
controlling the information flow by providing the subset of the data record via the URL portal address (Self: ¶71-74, ¶102; Sayers: Col 15, Line 52 – Col 16, Line 8; Col 18, Line 53 – Col 19, Line 11; Col. 20, Lines 27-38; Col. 25, Lines 26-48 presenting specific information to the user via the unique URL through a web interface).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the product information determination, as taught by Sayers, into the system and method of Self. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “allow two users to see different information or have different permissions” (Sayers: Col. 15, Lines 66-67).
In regards to claim 21, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Self further teaches wherein the product comprises a pharmaceutical product (Self: ¶6-7, ¶97).
In regards to claim 22, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Self further teaches wherein the location information is provided via an IP address of the scanning device, and/or a WiFi location information, and/or a cellular network cell (Self: ¶71, ¶102).
In regards to claim 23, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Sayers further teaches wherein the controlling of the information flow includes selecting the language of the information flow such that it matches the language associated to the country code of the scanning (Sayers: Col. 20, Lines 27-38).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the product information determination, as taught by Sayers, into the system and method of Self. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “allow two users to see different information or have different permissions” (Sayers: Col. 15, Lines 66-67).
In regards to claim 24, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Self further teaches wherein the controlling of the information flow includes filtering the amount of content related to the product being shown on the URL address (Self: ¶35, ¶51, ¶56, ¶68-75).
In regards to claim 25, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Self further teaches wherein the unique ID contains a plurality of application identifiers, wherein each application identifier identifies characteristic data related to the product (Self: ¶52-53, ¶57, ¶60, ¶77-79).
In regards to claim 26, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 25. Self further teaches wherein the plurality of application identifiers includes one or more of: a serial number identifier, a Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) code, an expiry date identifier of the product, a batch/lot number of the product, a final destination identifier identifying a final destination of the product (Self: ¶52-53, ¶57, ¶60, ¶77-79).
In regards to claim 27, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 25. Self further teaches wherein each application identifier is different from the other application identifiers (Self: ¶52-53, ¶57, ¶60, ¶77-79).
In regards to claim 28, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Self and Sayers further teach wherein, when the location information of the scanning matches with the final destination identifier, the information flow includes showing an Electronic (E)-leaflet in a language matching the language associated to the country code of the scanning (Self: ¶77-79; Sayers: Col. 20, Lines 27-38, Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the product information determination, as taught by Sayers, into the system and method of Self. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “allow two users to see different information or have different permissions” (Sayers: Col. 15, Lines 66-67).
In regards to claim 29, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Self and Sayers further teach wherein, when the location information of the scanning match with the final destination identifier, the information flow includes data indicating if the product is safe for consumption (Self: ¶77-79; Sayers: Col. 8, Lines 53-67, Col. 19, Lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the product information determination, as taught by Sayers, into the system and method of Self. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “allow two users to see different information or have different permissions” (Sayers: Col. 15, Lines 66-67).
In regards to claim 30, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Self further teaches where the unique ID is printed or attached to packaging material containing the product (Self: ¶35, ¶44, ¶54-56, ¶67, ¶69, ¶89-91).
In regards to claim 34, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Self further teaches wherein the location information is provided by the scanning device (Self: ¶71-74, ¶102).
In regards to claim 35, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 20. Self further teaches wherein the URL is accessed by the scanning device when scanning the unique ID (Self: ¶35, ¶55-56, ¶67, ¶69 ¶71-74, ¶102).
In regards to claim 36, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 20 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 20. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 20 applies to the rejection of claim 36.
Claim(s) 31-33 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Self (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20070215685), in view of Sayers (U.S. Patent No. 8756124), in further view of Williams (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20150046361).
In regards to claim 31, Self and Sayers teach the method of claim 30. Although the references disclose transmitting the location information to an external computer, the references do not explicit state a device configured to measure and transmit environmental information.
However, Williams teaches wherein a wireless logger device having a unique logger ID code is associated with the product by placing the logger into the packaging material (Williams: ¶47-54, ¶69-70 disclose a sensor device associated with the package), where the wireless logger device is configured to measure in real time an environmental related parameter such as temperature of the product and regularly transmit the measured environment related parameter together with the location information of the logger device to an external computer where the paired data is stored (Williams: ¶29, ¶47-59 disclose wherein the sensor device is configured to measure real-time environmental information and location information and regularly transmit the information to the system server).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor device, as taught by Williams, into the system and method of Self and Sayers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect and react to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” (Williams: ¶1).
In regards to claim 32, Self, Sayers, and Williams teach the method of claim 31. Self, Sayers, and Williams together further teach where the unique logger ID code is paired with the unique ID of the pharmaceutical product, where the paired ID's are transmitted to the external computer where it is stored (Self: ¶6-7, ¶97; Williams: ¶29, ¶47-59, ¶69-70).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor device, as taught by Williams, into the system and method of Self and Sayers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect and react to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” (Williams: ¶1).
In regards to claim 33, Self, Sayers, and Williams teach the method of claim 31. Self, Sayers, and Williams together further teach wherein the unique ID of the pharmaceutical product attached to the wireless logger device (Self: ¶6-7, ¶97; Williams: ¶24, ¶29, ¶47-59, ¶69-70).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor device, as taught by Williams, into the system and method of Self and Sayers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect and react to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” (Williams: ¶1).
In regards to claim 37, Self and Sayers teach the system of claim 36. Although the references disclose transmitting the location information to an external computer, the references do not explicit state a device configured to measure and transmit environmental information.
However, Self, Sayers, and Williams together teach further comprising a wireless logger device having a unique logger ID code (Williams: ¶47-54, ¶69-70), the wireless logger device comprising: at least one measuring device for measuring at least one environment related parameter of or around the pharmaceutical product (Self: ¶6-7, ¶97; Williams: ¶29, ¶47-59), a memory of storing the measured at least one environmental related parameter (Williams: ¶29, ¶47-59), a communication module for communicating with an external control computer including transmitting location related data of the wireless logger device together with the stored at least one stored environment related parameter (Williams: ¶29, ¶47-59), and a processor for controlling the at least one measuring device, the memory and the communication module, wherein the unique logger ID code is paired with the unique ID of the pharmaceutical product, where the paired ID's are transmitted to an external computer where they are stored (Self: ¶6-7, ¶97; Williams: ¶29, ¶47-59).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor device, as taught by Williams, into the system and method of Self and Sayers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect and react to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” (Williams: ¶1).
In regards to claim 38, Self, Sayers, and Williams teach the system of claim 37. Williams further teaches wherein the at least one measuring device comprises a temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the product, where the information flow includes temperature-related data of the product during transport in the supply chain from the primary transport leg to the last-mile transport leg (Williams: ¶29, ¶47-59, ¶89-91).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor device, as taught by Williams, into the system and method of Self and Sayers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “detect and react to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” (Williams: ¶1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights