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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 05/06/2025.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 18 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine and a machine, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 18 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 18, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
a menu comprising a plurality of interactable selectable elements; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could present a menu of this type to a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers)
one or more analytics windows displaying analytics of the data associated with at least a portion of the inventory, wherein the analytics are displayed based on a selection by a user of one of the interactable elements and one of the interactable selectable elements; and wherein the data comprises the unique identifier and a current status of the reusable containers. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display analytics windows in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers)
the plurality of interactable elements comprising an operator view, a container view, a report card view and a manage profile view; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display analytics windows in these types of views; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers)
a drop-down menu comprising a plurality of interactable selectable elements, the plurality of selectable elements comprising a date; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide a menu of options; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers)
one or more analytics windows displaying analytics of the data associated with at least a portion of the inventory, wherein the analytics are displayed based on a selection by a user of one of the interactable elements and one of the interactable selectable elements; wherein the data comprises the unique identifier and a current status of the reusable containers; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics windows displaying analytics in response to a user selection; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers)
wherein in the report card view, each of a plurality of analytics windows displays one of: a return rate of the reusable containers calculated based on the data, a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data, and a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data, one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container returns by operator, and another one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container returns by operator; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers)
and wherein in the manage profile view, the digital display further comprises a search by location search bar to search for a collection bin for collecting the reusable containers, a bin location window displaying plurality of locations of collection bins for collecting reusable containers, and wherein the bin location window displays an available capacity of one or more of the collection bins. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above set of steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the claims recite certain methods activity since they recite a set of steps for displaying analytics regarding reusable containers which comprises certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform these steps in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A digital display representing data for an inventory of reusable containers, wherein each reusable container is associated with a unique identifier, the digital display comprising: (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
one or interactable elements, wherein each interactable element is associated with a view of the data; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a drop-down menu (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim 2:
wherein the interactable elements comprise an operator view.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 3:
wherein the interactable elements comprise a container view.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 4:
wherein the interactable elements comprise a report card view.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 5:
wherein the interactable elements comprise a manage profile view.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 6:
wherein the interactable elements comprise a plurality of interactable elements selected from the group consisting of an operator view, a container view, a report card view and a manage profile view.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 7:
wherein in the report card view, one of the analytics window displays a return rate of the reusable containers calculated based on the data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 8:
wherein in the report card view, one of the analytics window displays a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 9:
wherein in the report card view, the digital display further comprises a window displaying a number of reusable containers returned based on the data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 10:
wherein in the report card view, each of a plurality of analytics windows displays one of: a return rate of the reusable containers calculated based on the data, a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data, and a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 11:
wherein in the report card view, one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container check-outs by operator.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 12:
wherein in the report card view, one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container returns by operator.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 13:
wherein another one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container returns by operator.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide analytics views comprising this type of data in this type of view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 14:
wherein in the manage profile view, the digital display further comprises a search by location search bar.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could search bar in a view; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers. Furthermore, regarding the use of a search bar, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 15:
wherein in the manage profile view, the digital display further comprises a search by location search bar to search for a collection bin for collecting the reusable containers.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide a search interface of this type; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers. Furthermore, regarding the use of a search bar, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 16:
wherein in the manage profile view, the digital display further comprises a bin location window displaying a plurality of locations of collection bins for collecting reusable containers.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide display locations of collection bins in a display window; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
Claim 17:
wherein the bin location window displays an available capacity of one or more of the collection bins.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide display an available capacity of collection bins in a display window; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial container management entities would perform this step in managing and organizing inventory of containers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-17, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schnitzer, Cheryl (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20230289715; hereinafter "Schnitzer").
As per claim 1, Schnitzer teaches:
A digital display representing data for an inventory of reusable containers, wherein each reusable container is associated with a unique identifier, the digital display comprising:
Schnitzer teaches a system and method for tracking reusable containers. (Schnitzer: abstract) Schnitzer teaches that each container tracked may comprise a unique identifier assigned thereto. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0041, 44], Fig. 4)
one or interactable elements, wherein each interactable element is associated with a view of the data;
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14)
a menu comprising a plurality of interactable selectable elements;
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14)
one or more analytics windows displaying analytics of the data associated with at least a portion of the inventory, wherein the analytics are displayed based on a selection by a user of one of the interactable elements and one of the interactable selectable elements; and
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56, 61-62], Fig. 12, 14-16) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id.
wherein the data comprises the unique identifier and a current status of the reusable containers.
Schnitzer further teaches that the data used to perform analytics may comprise a unique QR code associated with each container and a status of the container. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0044], Fig. 4)
As per claim 2, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the interactable elements comprise an operator view.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id.
As per claim 4, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the interactable elements comprise a report card view.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a report card view which indicates number of containers verified return.
As per claim 5, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the interactable elements comprise a manage profile view.
Schnitzer further teaches a manage profile view wherein a user may search for locations and customer accounts associated with the locations. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052], Fig. 15)
As per claim 6, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the interactable elements comprise a plurality of interactable elements selected from the group consisting of an operator view, a container view, a report card view and a manage profile view.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a report card view which indicates number of containers verified return.
As per claim 8, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein in the report card view, one of the analytics window displays a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a report card view which indicates number of containers verified return.
As per claim 9, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein in the report card view, the digital display further comprises a window displaying a number of reusable containers returned based on the data.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a report card view which indicates number of containers verified return.
As per claim 10, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein in the report card view, each of a plurality of analytics windows displays one of: a return rate of the reusable containers calculated based on the data, a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data, and a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a report card view which indicates number of containers verified return.
As per claim 11, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein in the report card view, one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container check-outs by operator.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a report card view which indicates number of containers verified return.
As per claim 12, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein in the report card view, one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container returns by operator.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a report card view which indicates number of containers verified return.
As per claim 13, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein another one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container returns by operator.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a separate analytics window which indicates number of containers verified return.
As per claim 14, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein in the manage profile view, the digital display further comprises a search by location search bar.
Schnitzer further teaches a manage profile view wherein a user may search for locations and customer accounts associated with the locations. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052], Fig. 15)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnitzer in view of Zaengle et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20110119295; hereinafter "Zaengle").
As per claim 3, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the interactable elements comprise a container view.
Schnitzer further teaches that a container view may be accessed which comprises a history of a given container. (Schnitzer: paragraphs [0052, 56, 61-12], Figs. 12, 14-16) As outlined above, Schnitzer teaches the accessing of views via one or more selectable elements of a display dashboard. (Schnitzer: paragraph [052, 56, 61-62], Figs. 12, 14-16)
To be thorough, and to the extent that Schnitzer does not explicitly teach an interactable element which takes a user to the container view showing the analytics on the container, Zaengle teaches this element. Zaengle teaches that a user may select a "track it" button and/or enter a unique code for a box (an interactable element) which may take the user to a page which comprises analytics on a specific container. (Zaengle: paragraphs [0025, 27-33], Figs. 1-2) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Schnitzer or by Zaengle. Clarifying that an interactable element may take a user to the container view, as taught by Zaengle does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Schnitzer. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Zaengle with the teachings of Schnitzer, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnitzer in view of Schwerin-Wenzel et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20050015333; hereinafter "Schwerin").
As per claim 7, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein in the report card view, one of the analytics window displays a return rate of the reusable containers calculated based on the data.
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer, however, does not appear to explicitly teach displaying a rate of return.
Schwerin, however, teaches that a display may indicate to a user the percentage of products that have been returned. (Schwerin: paragraph [0093], Fig. 22) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Schnitzer or by Schwerin. Displaying the number of products returned out of the number of products checked out as a percentage, as taught by Schwerin, does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Schnitzer. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Schwerin with the teachings of Schnitzel, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnitzer in view of Saltzman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20230196306; hereinafter "Saltzman").
As per claim 15, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein in the manage profile view, the digital display further comprises a search by location search bar to search for a collection bin for collecting the reusable containers.
Schnitzer further teaches a manage profile view wherein a user may search for locations and customer accounts associated with the locations. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052], Fig. 15) Schnitzer, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that this page comprises a search view where return locations may be displayed on a map.
Saltzman, however, teaches that a user my search by location into a search bar, wherein locations for returning items (here, recyclables, but taught by Schnitzer to comprise reusable articles) may be displayed on a map. (Saltzman: paragraphs [0145-147], Fig. 20C) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Schnitzer or by Saltzman. Adding the map search functionality of Saltzman to the teachings of Schnitzer does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Saltzman. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Saltzman with the teachings of Schnitzer, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 16, Schnitzer teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein in the manage profile view, the digital display further comprises a bin location window displaying a plurality of locations of collection bins for collecting reusable containers.
Schnitzer further teaches a manage profile view wherein a user may search for locations and customer accounts associated with the locations. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052], Fig. 15) Schnitzer, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that this page comprises a search view where return locations may be displayed on a map.
Saltzman, however, teaches that a user my search by location into a search bar, wherein locations for returning items (here, recyclables, but taught by Schnitzer to comprise reusable articles) may be displayed on a map. (Saltzman: paragraphs [0145-147], Fig. 20C) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Schnitzer or by Saltzman. Adding the map search functionality of Saltzman to the teachings of Schnitzer does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Saltzman. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Saltzman with the teachings of Schnitzer, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnitzer in view of Saltzman further in view of Sethuraman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,526,838 B1; hereinafter "Sethuraman").
As per claim 17, Schnitzer in view of Saltzman teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the bin location window displays an available capacity of one or more of the collection bins.
Sethuraman, however, teaches that a user interface may be displayed to a user which comprises an indication as to whether a drop-off location for a user has enough available capacity for a user to make a drop off. (Sethuraman: col. 4, lines 1-21) Sethuraman teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Schnitzer in view of Saltzman for the benefit of helping improve capacity reservation predictions and preventing unjustified rejections or items being deposited, as well as providing for more efficient usage of resources. (Sethuraman: col. 2 lines 48-60) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sethuraman with the teachings of Schnitzer in view of Saltzman to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnitzer in view of Schwerin further in view of Saltzman and further in view of Sethuraman.
As per claim 18, Schnitzer teaches:
A digital display representing data for an inventory of reusable containers, wherein each reusable container is associated with a unique identifier, the digital display comprising:
Schnitzer teaches a system and method for tracking reusable containers. (Schnitzer: abstract) Schnitzer teaches that each container tracked may comprise a unique identifier assigned thereto. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0041, 44], Fig. 4)
a plurality of interactable elements associated with a view of the data, the plurality of interactable elements comprising an operator view, a container view, a report card view and a manage profile view;
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches a manage profile view wherein a user may search for locations and customer accounts associated with the locations. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052], Fig. 15) Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a report card view which indicates number of containers verified return. Schnitzer teaches an operator view in the form of an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id.
With respect to the following limitation:
a drop-down menu comprising a plurality of interactable selectable elements, the plurality of selectable elements comprising a date;
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers, wherein the elements may comprise a date. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14-16) Schnitzer, however, does not appear to explicitly teach toggling between the views via a drop-down menu.
Schwerin, however, teaches that a drop-down menu may be used to change views in a display interface. (Schwerin: paragraph [0045]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Schnitzer or by Schwerin. Changing the view via a drop down list, as taught by Schwerin, does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Schnitzer. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Schwerin with the teachings of Schnitzel, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Schnitzer in view of Schwerin further teaches:
one or more analytics windows displaying analytics of the data associated with at least a portion of the inventory, wherein the analytics are displayed based on a selection by a user of one of the interactable elements and one of the interactable selectable elements;
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56, 61-62], Fig. 12, 14-16) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id.
wherein the data comprises the unique identifier and a current status of the reusable containers;
Schnitzer further teaches that the data used to perform analytics may comprise a unique QR code associated with each container and a status of the container. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0044], Fig. 4)
wherein in the report card view, each of a plurality of analytics windows displays one of: a return rate of the reusable containers calculated based on the data, a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data, and a number of reusable containers presently checked out based on the data, one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container returns by operator, and another one of the analytics windows displays a number of reusable container returns by operator;
Schnitzer teaches an administrator management page with selectable elements which allow for different views of data associated with containers. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052, 56], Fig. 14) Schnitzer further teaches that a user may select "all transactions" from a side menu, wherein doing so shows number of containers checked out, pending return, in stock, damaged, and lost. Id. Schnitzer teaches an alternative instance of a report card view wherein a user may be displayed a report card of their current check-outs, or an administrator may be shown this data in cumulative fashion for all users. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0061-62], Fig. 12) Further still, Fig. 16 of Schnitzer shows another example of a separate analytics window which indicates number of containers verified return.
With respect to the following limitation:
and wherein in the manage profile view, the digital display further comprises a search by location search bar to search for a collection bin for collecting the reusable containers, a bin location window displaying plurality of locations of collection bins for collecting reusable containers, and wherein the bin location window displays an available capacity of one or more of the collection bins.
Schnitzer further teaches a manage profile view wherein a user may search for locations and customer accounts associated with the locations. (Schnitzer: paragraph [0052], Fig. 15) Schnitzer, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that this page comprises a search view where return locations may be displayed on a map, or that an available capacity may be displayed.
Saltzman, however, teaches that a user my search by location into a search bar, wherein locations for returning items (here, recyclables, but taught by Schnitzer to comprise reusable articles) may be displayed on a map. (Saltzman: paragraphs [0145-147], Fig. 20C) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Schnitzer or by Saltzman. Adding the map search functionality of Saltzman to the teachings of Schnitzer does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Saltzman. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Saltzman with the teachings of Schnitzer, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Sethuraman, however, teaches that a user interface may be displayed to a user which comprises an indication as to whether a drop-off location for a user has enough available capacity for a user to make a drop off. (Sethuraman: col. 4, lines 1-21) Sethuraman teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Schnitzer in view of Saltzman for the benefit of helping improve capacity reservation predictions and preventing unjustified rejections or items being deposited, as well as providing for more efficient usage of resources. (Sethuraman: col. 2 lines 48-60) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sethuraman with the teachings of Schnitzer in view of Saltzman to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights