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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 is 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. Regarding independent claims 1 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to generation of a product ID which is a mental process. Nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. The limitations on receiving information, determining attributes, identifying attribute code, generating UPID is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to generating a product code stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.] The claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gorgias, “Free SKU generator”, 12/3/2020, http://web.archive.org/web/20201203012926/https://www.gorgias.com/tools/sku-generator
in view of Coen 20160203319
Regarding Claim 1,
receiving specification information for a … package, the … package including i) a …product; ii) services associated with a … product; or iii) a combination of 1 and 11; determining a plurality of product attributes based at least in part on the specification information; identifying, for each of the plurality of product attributes, an alphanumeric product attribute code; and
Gorgias is directed to a online SKU generator. (Gorgias, p.1). Gorgias discloses that a SKU could be generated based on alphanumeric codes that reflect product attributes.
PNG
media_image1.png
1860
1200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Gorgias, p.10).
generating a uniform package identifier (UPID) for the data package based at least in part on the plurality of alphanumeric product attribute codes, wherein the UPID is alphanumeric, and wherein the UPID includes each of the plurality of alphanumeric product attribute codes.
Gorgias discloses a unique identifier could be generated by joining individual attribute codes.
PNG
media_image2.png
1860
1200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Gorgias, p.3)
Gorgias does not disclose
Data
data
data
data
Coen is directed to a marketplace for web security products. (Coen, abstract, “The platform relies upon third party security products from independent security vendors to provide the technology that forms the platform's security portfolio. Through the platform's web-based vendor portal, each vendor maintains its own product information including features sets, target customer demographics, applicable software stacks, compliance/regulatory capabilities and pricing. By cross referencing this product information with specific customer information, the platform can intelligently promote the correct products and capability upgrades at the right time to the right customers.”; para 0028, “Referring to the particular example above, the recommendation report would identify the Radware AppWall code injection SKU as a product for addressing the customer's identified Apache Tomcat vulnerability. Additional recommendation examples are listed below and categorized in accordance with growth consumption in order to provide specific, non-limiting examples of the numerous and varied mappings and assessments which are contemplated by the present embodiments. One skilled in the art appreciates that there are numerous possible recommendation outcomes which may be generated by the recommendation engine and that these examples are in no way intended to be limiting.”). The examiner interprets a security product to read on a data product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Gorgias with the data product of Coen with the motivation of selling security services. Id.
Further the examiner notes that the claim does not recite a functional relationship between the programmed information and the computer. Accordingly, it may be owed no patentable weight as nonfunctional descriptive material. (MPEP 2111.05, “When determining the scope of a claim directed to a computer-readable medium containing certain programming, the examiner should first look to the relationship between the programming and the intended computer system. Where the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. For instance, a claim to computer-readable medium programmed with attribute data objects that perform the function of facilitating retrieval, addition, and removal of information in the intended computer system, establishes a functional relationship such that the claimed attribute data objects are given patentable weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists.”)
Conclusion
Relevant art not relied on but made of record include
“Global Product Classification (GPC) Development & Implementation Guide”, 2015, https://www.gs1.org/sites/default/files/gpc_development_and_implementation_0.pdf
“GPC Overview
The GS1 Global Product Classification (GPC) is a system that gives both sides of trading partner
relationship a common language for grouping products in the same way. It ensures that products
are classified correctly and uniformly, everywhere in the world. The term “product” as used
throughout this guide refers mainly to physical products; however GPC is expanding into services as
well.
The business objectives of GPC are to:
■ Support buying programs by allowing buyers to pre-select groups of applicable products
■ Provide a common language for category management, thus speeding up reaction to consumer needs
■ Be a key enabler of the Global Data Synchronisation Network
■ To be a Pivotal classification system between the information exchange parties
How it Works
GPC is a rules-based, four-tier classification system for grouping products. The four tiers are
Segment, Family, Class, and Brick (with attributes and attribute values). A Brick identifies a
category incorporating products (Global Trade Item Numbers (GTINs)) that serve a common
purpose, are of a similar form and material, and share the same set of category attributes.
GPC Foundations
The foundation of GPC is called a "Brick;" GPC bricks define categories of similar products. Using the
GPC brick as part of GDSN ensures the correct recognition of the product category across the
extended supply chain, from seller to buyer. Bricks can be further characterised by Brick Attributes
and attribute values.”
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 18/204086. All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no, however, event will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights