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 the Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-14 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
A … method of calculating a duty rate applicable to a path segment in a supply chain network, the … method comprising:
receiving input data defining a supply chain network architecture comprising a plurality of sites, each site having a location, and a plurality of path segments connecting pairs of sites;
receiving an order to provide a quantity of one or more finished goods to a destination site, each finished good comprising one or more raw materials;
for each path segment connecting a source site and a destination site, determining the duty rate applicable to the path segment based on the location of the source site, the location of the destination site, and a type and quantity of finished goods or raw materials moved along the path segment;
accessing …comprising duty rates indexed by combinations of source location, destination location, and a product type;
for each path segment, calculating the duty rate by matching the location of the source site, the location of the destination site, and product type to entries in …;
calculating, based on the duty rate of each path segment, a total duty cost associated with fulfilling the order along one or more enumerated paths in the supply chain network; and
outputting, for each path segment, the duty rate and the total duty cost associated with fulfilling the order along one or more enumerated paths in the supply chain network.
The limitation of Claim 8 recites:
A … method for determining duty rates in a supply chain network, the … method comprising:
receiving input data defining an architecture of the supply chain network comprising a plurality of sites, each site having a location, and a plurality of path segments connecting pairs of sites;
receiving an order to provide a quantity of one or more finished goods to a destination site, each finished good comprising one or more component products and raw materials;
accessing, for each finished good, a bill of materials (BOM) that specifies one or more component products and the raw materials required for its manufacture;
identifying, for each component product and finished good, one or more respective source sites and destination sites along the supply chain network;
determining, based on the one or more respective source sites and destination sites, the duty rate for each component product and finished good, wherein the determining comprises cross- referencing relationships among multiple bills of materials to identify shared or dependent component products and the raw materials across different finished goods;
for each component product or raw material that appears in multiple BOMs, aggregating or allocating the duty rate based on a total quantity required across all relevant finished goods; and
retrieving or calculating the duty rate for each component product and finished good by matching the source sites and destination sites and product type to entries in …; and
outputting, for each component product and finished good, the duty rate for use in calculating a total duty cost associated with fulfilling the order along one or more enumerated paths in the supply chain network.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as calculating duty rates across a supply chain. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
Computer
Duty rate database
Claim 8:
Computer
Duty rate database or table
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and 8, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-7 and 9-14 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 5:
Network optimization model
Claim 7:
Client device
Claim 12:
Network optimization model
Claim 14:
Client device
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Grichnik (US2015/0039375A1)
Claim 1: Grichnik teaches A computer-implemented method of calculating a duty rate applicable to a path segment in a supply chain network, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving input data defining a supply chain network architecture comprising a plurality of sites, each site having a location, and a plurality of path segments connecting pairs of sites; (Grichnik, Par. 0038)
Grichnik, in Par. 0038, teaches Network modeling module 232 may receive the forecasted information from advanced forecasting module 231 and simulate and optimize the flow of materials (i.e., items, parts, products, etc.) between the supply chain entities in order to meet certain business goals of the entire organization that includes the supply chain entities. The business goal may include at least one of response time, profit, return on net assets, inventory turns, service level, and resilience. Network modeling module 232 may simulate the flow of materials based on geographical locations of each one of the supply chain entities, the transportation methods (e.g., air, ship, truck, etc.), and link capacities (e.g., quantity of materials that can be transported via a certain route). Based on the simulation results and other information such as production costs, transportation costs, and regional sales price, and the like, network modeling module 232 may generate information such as gross revenue, cost of goods sold, and profit related to one or more products or parts.
receiving an order to provide a quantity of one or more finished goods to a destination site, each finished good comprising one or more raw materials; (Grichnik, Par. 0031)
Grichnik, in Par. 0031, teaches When customers 140-144 make demands to manufacturing facilities 120-122 or distributing facilities 130-133, the downstream inventories and upstream inventories listed above may be determined such that the demand can be fulfilled with minimum inventory cost and within the response time agreed between the customer and the company.
for each path segment connecting a source site and a destination site, determining the duty rate applicable to the path segment based on the location of the source site, the location of the destination site, and a type and quantity of finished goods or raw materials moved along the path segment; (Grichnik Par. 0055)
Grichnik, Par. 0055, teaches processor 210 may determine at least one tariff cost imposed on a product supplied from one supply chain entity to another supply chain entity (step 512). For example, processor 210 may determine a tariff cost imposed on a manufactured product supplied from manufacturing facility 120 to customer 141, as shown in FIG. 1. As discussed above, processor 210 may determine the input parameter values and the tariff cost based on user inputs, or based on data from database 270.
accessing a duty rate database comprising duty rates indexed by combinations of source location, destination location, and a product type; (Grichnik Par. 0055; Par. 0068)
Grichnik, Par. 0055, teaches processor 210 may determine at least one tariff cost imposed on a product supplied from one supply chain entity to another supply chain entity (step 512). For example, processor 210 may determine a tariff cost imposed on a manufactured product supplied from manufacturing facility 120 to customer 141, as shown in FIG. 1. As discussed above, processor 210 may determine the input parameter values and the tariff cost based on user inputs, or based on data from database 270.
Grichnik, Par. 0068, teaches processor 210 may first determine a plurality of input parameters each having an input parameter value (step 810). Next, processor 210 may determine a plurality of tariff cost arrays (step 812). Each tariff cost array includes a plurality of possible tariff cost values each being imposed on a product supplied from one supply chain entity to another supply chain entity.
for each path segment, calculating the duty rate by matching the location of the source site, the location of the destination site, and product type to entries in the duty rate database; (Grichnik, Par. 0068)
Grichnik, Par. 0068, teaches processor 210 may determine a plurality of tariff cost arrays (step 812). Each tariff cost array includes a plurality of possible tariff cost values each being imposed on a product supplied from one supply chain entity to another supply chain entity. For example, processor 210 may evenly distribute the possible tariff cost values for the corresponding product within a plausible range. For example, a first product A supplied from manufacturing facility 120 to customer 141 may be imposed with tariff cost values t.sub.A1, t.sub.A2, . . . t.sub.An, evenly distributed with a first range, and a second product B supplied from manufacturing facility 121 to customer 142 may be imposed with tariff cost values t.sub.B1, t.sub.B2, . . . t.sub.Bn, evenly distributed with a second range. In such case, processor 210 may determine a plurality of tariff cost arrays [t.sub.A1, t.sub.B1], [t.sub.A2, t.sub.B1], [t.sub.A3, t.sub.B1], [t.sub.A2, t.sub.B2], . . . [t.sub.An, t.sub.Bn]. Then, processor 210 may determine a plurality of desired business goals (step 814).
calculating, based on the duty rate of each path segment, a total duty cost associated with fulfilling the order along one or more enumerated paths in the supply chain network; and (Grichnik, Par. 0069; 0049; 0058)
Grichnik, Par. 0069, teaches processor 210 may determine a plurality of optimal network structures based on each tariff cost. Specifically, processor 210 may first select a tariff cost array from the plurality of tariff cost arrays (step 816). Then, processor 210 may determine the plurality of optimal network structures to achieve the plurality of business goals based on the selected tariff cost, and may determine a plurality of refined business values associated with each optimal network structure based on the selected tariff cost array (step 818). Each optimal network structure is determined to achieve a respective desired business goal based on the selected tariff cost array.
Grichnik, Par. 0049, teaches processor 210 may determine the total transportation cost as a sum of transportation costs along individual paths in the selected network structure. Processor 210 may also determine the total inventory cost by determining an inventory requirement for each supply chain entity based on the input combination, determining an inventory cost for each supply chain entity based on the respective inventory requirement, and determining the total inventory cost by combining the respective inventory cost for each supply chain entity.
Grichnik, Par. 0058, teaches processor 210 may determine a preliminary profit value of the selected candidate network structure by considering the tariff cost. In this step, the effects of tariff on shipping time, operational cost, and inventory cost, etc., are ignored. The preliminary profit value P.sub.preliminary may be represented by: P.sub.preliminary=[(# of products sold).times.(profit margin per product sold)-total transportation cost-total inventory cost]-[(# of products sold).times.(tariff cost per product sold)]
outputting, for each path segment, the duty rate and the total duty cost associated with fulfilling the order along one or more enumerated paths in the supply chain network. (Grichnik, Par. 0073)
Grichnik, par. 0073, teaches the display device may display the plurality of optimal network structures determined to maximize profit based on various tariff cost arrays. The display device may display different optimal network structures in different colors. The display device may also highlight the paths that are common to all of the optimal network structures. The display device may further display the respective stability value of each path in the optimal network structures. In addition, the display device may display a graph showing the different refined profit values with respect to various tariff costs.
Claim 2: Grichnik teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising applying a taxable value override for a path segment if specified in an override table and calculating the duty rate for the path segment based on an overridden value rather than a default value. (Grichnik, Par. 0054 and 0068)
Grichnik, Par. 0054, teaches If trade barrier exists between country A and country C, an additional tariff cost will be imposed on all of the products supplied from manufacturing facility 120 to customer 141.
Grichnik, par. 0068, teaches processor 210 may first determine a plurality of input parameters each having an input parameter value (step 810). Next, processor 210 may determine a plurality of tariff cost arrays (step 812). Each tariff cost array includes a plurality of possible tariff cost values each being imposed on a product supplied from one supply chain entity to another supply chain entity.
Claim 3: Grichnik teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining the duty rate for a path segment by:
identifying whether a product being moved is a finished good or a raw material; (Grichnik, Par. 0025-0027; 0029-0030; 0038: parts or manufactured product)
when the product is a finished good, determining the duty rate based on the location where the finished good is manufactured and the destination site; and (Grichnik, Par. 0055: tariff effect/cost based on input parameter value)
when the product is a raw material, determining the duty rate based on an origin region or country of the raw material and a region or country where the raw material is consumed or incorporated into a finished good. (Grichnik, Par. 0055: tariff effect/cost based on input parameter value)
Claim 4: Grichnik teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising dynamically updating the duty rate for a path segment in response to changes in the location of the source site or the location of the destination site, the type or quantity of goods moved, or updates to the duty rate database or override table. (Grichnik, Par. 0055: tariff effect/cost based on input parameter value; Par. 0068: tariff arrays)
Claim 5: Grichnik teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising calculating the duty rate for each path segment as part of a network optimization model that enumerates multiple possible paths through the supply chain network and determines the total duty cost for each path based on a sum of the duty rates for each path segment. (Grichnik, Par. 0069-0070: tariff cost array, optimal network structures; Par. 0073)
Claim 6: Grichnik teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising calculating the duty rate for a path segment as a function of a value of the finished goods or raw materials moved along the path segment, including retrieving the duty rate from the duty rate database or override table, and any additional fees, taxes, or surcharges specified for the source site or the destination site. (Grichnik, Par. 0055: calculated tariff cost; 0058: operational/inventory cost; par. 0068: array)
Claim 7: Grichnik teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising outputting the duty rate for each path segment for display on a client device as part of an optimal path solution for fulfilling the order. (Grichnik, Par. 0073: display)
Claims 8-14:
Claim 8-14 are directed to a method. Claims 8-14 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1-7 which are directed towards a method. Claims 8-14 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1-7, respectively. Furthermore, claim 8 recites some additional limitations with respect to duty rate for the component products/materials. These limitations are taught by Grichnik in 0029-0031, which discusses upstream and downstream inventory which may be determined such that the demand can be fulfilled with minimum inventory cost for the parts and subsystems (i.e. component products/materials). See also, par. 0038, 0045, 0055 and 0058 which discloses the tariff cost and tariff array and total cost calculation for inventory.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights