Ex Parte Davidson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

13435686 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/435,686 03/30/2012 Mark J. Davidson
143177 7590 12/21/2018
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(United Parcel Service, Inc.)
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
056182/398629 8309
EXAMINER
YOUNG, ASHLEY YA-SHEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK J. DAVIDSON
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, HUNG H. BUI, and AARON W. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18 and 30, which are all the claims
pending in the application. Claims 19-29 are withdrawn. Claims App 'x.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is United Parcel Service
of America, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed April
19, 2016; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 31, 2017; Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") mailed April 6, 2017; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
November 23, 2015; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed March 30,
2012.
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention
Appellant's invention relates to "systems and methods for capturing
and evaluating operational data in order to improve operational efficiencies
in a variety of business contexts." Spec. 2: 10-12. According to Appellant,
"a fleet management computer system [is provided, shown in Figure 2] for
assessing delivery performance." Spec. 2: 14--15.
Appellant's Figure 2 is reproduced below with additional markings
for illustration.
0
. .. 100
D 102
TELE.lvlATlCS DEVlCE
0
tr---
110 ....
HANDHE1D DEVJCE
CONflCURED TO RECE.lV.E
''SERVKE.DATA''
130
_ __..., NETWORK
5
/
I'/
Figure 2 shows a fleet management system 100 for evaluating various
operational efficiencies based on operational data including (1) "telematics
data" received from telematics device 102 and (2) "service data" received
from handheld device 110.
As shown in Figure 2, one or more processors included in central
server 120 are configured to:
2
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
[ 1] receive operational data comprising vehicle telematics data
and service data, [ 1 a] the vehicle telematics data being
indicative of one or more vehicle dynamics for at least one
vehicle during one or more time periods, and [ 1 b] the service
data being indicative of one or more service dynamics for at
least one vehicle operator during the one or more time periods;
[2] identify the occurrence of one or more delivery stops based
on the operational data; [3] identify one or more stop attributes
for each of the identified delivery stops; and [ 4] generate a
graphical display indicating each of the identified delivery stops
and the identified stop attributes.
Spec. 2:18-26.
Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 30 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A fleet management computer system for assessing
delivery performance, said fleet management computer system
compnsmg:
one or more memory storage areas; and
one or more processors in communication with said one or
more memory storage areas;
wherein said one or more processors are, collectively,
configured to:
[ 1] receive operational data comprising:
[la] vehicle telematics data generated based at
least in part on an output of one or more vehicle sensors located
on at least one vehicle and being indicative of one or more
vehicle dynamics for said at least one vehicle during one or more
time periods and said vehicle telematics data being associated
with contextual telematics data indicative of the at least one
vehicle to which the telematics data relates and the temporal
circumstances of the telematics data's capture, and
3
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
[ 1 b] service data generated based at least in part on
vehicle operator input received by at least one handheld device
and being indicative of one or more service dynamics performed
by at least one vehicle operator operating said at least one vehicle
during said one or more time periods, and said service data being
associated with contextual service data generated by the at least
one handheld device and indicating the at least one vehicle
operator to which the service data relates and the temporal
circumstances of the service data's capture;
provide, via at least one display device, a graphical user
interface configured to receive user input;
receive, via said graphical user interface, a user request for
assessing delivery performance relating to one or more requested
parameters;
[2] identify, by comparing said one or more requested
parameters with said contextual telematics data and said
contextual service data, requested operational data comprising
vehicle telematics data and service data associated with said one
or more requested parameters;
identify the occurrence of one or more delivery stops made
by at least one vehicle based on said requested operational data;
[3] identify, based on said vehicle telematics data and said
service data associated with said one or more requested
parameters, one or more stop attributes for each of said
identified delivery stops made by at least one vehicle; and
generate, via said at least one display device, a graphical
display indicating each of said identified delivery stops and said
identified stop attributes.
App. Br. 26-27 (Claims App'x) (bracketing added).
4
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
EXAMINER'S REJECTION3 and REFERENCES
Claims 1-18 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Olsen et al. (US 2006/0055564 Al; published Mar. 16,
2006) ("Olsen") and Prabhakaran (US 5,904,727; issued May 18, 1999).
Final Act. 7-37.
DISCUSSION
In support of the § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, the Examiner
finds Olsen teaches Appellant's claimed "fleet management computer
system for assessing delivery performance" shown in Figure 2, including all
claim limitations, except for an express disclosure that "a graphical display
indicat[ es] each of said identified delivery stops and said identified stop
attributes." Final Act. 7-13 (citing Olsen ,r,r 2-3, 7, 12-13, 15, 25-27, 34,
38, 42, 52---62 29-32, 35).
Olsen's Figure 2 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
3 Claims 1-18 and 30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the grounds
that the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible "abstract idea"
without significantly more. Final Act. 5-7. However, the Examiner
withdrew the§ 101 rejection in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2).
5
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
203
303
200
: ~'N~1°'~'°'FLD .. I
' ~"'-'·= Portabh,t 1
i DE';.,1:cE Data :
; •QT> _· f ------ Acquisition :
; • · .• l . Device :
I .· I 130
: Mainframe 1 1
1 ~. <_:~;>- o-r Local !-__J
fiLJ Computer
CE.NTRAL SER,...".ER
120
T.ELEM .. AsTIC.S DEVICE
FIGURE 2
ilEHICLE
~>El'lf:SCJ:RS
.220
Olsen's Figure 2 shows a fleet management computer system for
assessing delivery performance ( e.g., time traveled between stops, time of
each stop, distance traveled, proximity to delivery point, routing of delivery
points, and number of stops made per vehicle) based on (1) telematics data
received from vehicle sensors 220, via telematics device (RFID tag) 120,
and (2) service data received from handheld device 130 .. Olsen ,r,r 2-3 ..
The Examiner relies on Prabhakaran for teaching the missing feature
(i.e., graphical display of the delivery stops and stop attributes).. Final Act.
13-14 (citing Prabhakaran 1:50-58, 9:25--42, 10:16-34, Fig. 26) .. Based on
these teachings, the Examiner concludes that "[it] would have been obvious ..
.. .. to modify the invention of Olsen to include the graphical representation of
6
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
Prabhakaran for the purpose of providing knowledge of the status and
location of a fleet of vehicles to make informed and efficient time critical
decisions and to allow drivers to efficiently determine their position"
because doing so would "allow for adjustment and management of the fleet
vehicles and drivers." Ans. 10; Final Act. 14--15 (citing Prabhakaran 1:30-
41).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Prabhakaran and the Examiner's reason to combine. Instead, Appellant
disputes the Examiner's factual findings regarding Olsen. In particular,
Appellant argues "the portions of Olsen cited ... make no mention of':
receiving service data generated based at least in part on vehicle
operator input received by a handheld device and indicative of
one or more service dynamics performed by at least one vehicle
operator operating at least one vehicle during one or more time
periods; identifying the occurrence of one or more delivery stops
made by at least one vehicle based on requested operational data
(e.g., vehicle telematics data and service data associated with one
or more requested parameters provided in a user request); and
identifying, based on the vehicle telematics data and the service
data associated with one or more requested parameters, one or
more stop attributes for each identified delivery stop.
App. Br. 19--20 ( emphasis added). In other words, Appellant acknowledges
Olsen teaches the use of "vehicle telematics data" received from vehicle
sensors 220, via telematics device (RFID tag) 120, shown in Figure 2, but
argues Olsen does not teach or suggest any "service data generated based at
least in part on vehicle operator input received by at least one handheld
device and being indicative of one or more service dynamics performed by
at least one vehicle operator" as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellant further
argues Olsen's "vehicle telematics data" is not the same as "service data"
and the Examiner has never pointed out "how Olsen's telematics data
7
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
could ever be considered comparable to the recited 'service data generated
based at least in part on vehicle operator input received by at least one
handheld device"' as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3--4. Because Olsen does
not teach any "service data," Appellant continues, Olsen also does not teach
or suggest any "operational data comprising [both] vehicle telematics data ..
. and service data" and any identification of "requested operational data
comprising vehicle telematics data and service data associated with said one
or more requested parameters" and "based on said vehicle telematics data
and said service data associated with said one or more requested parameters,
one or more stop attributes for each of said identified delivery stops made by
at least one vehicle" as recited in Appellant's claim 1. App. Br. 19--20
( emphasis added). Likewise, Appellant argues, because Prabhakaran is only
relied for teaching "a graphical display indicating each of said identified
delivery stops and said identified stop attributes," Prabhakaran does not cure
the deficiency of Olsen. Id. at 20.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Instead, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 4--11. As such, we
adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For
example, as correctly recognized by the Examiner, Olsen teaches
Appellant's claimed "service data ... received by at least one handheld
device and being indicative of one or more service dynamics performed by
at least one vehicle operator" in the form of "data corresponding to various
elements of the delivery process" ( also known as "parcel delivery data")
input via handheld device 130, shown in Olsen's Figure 2, including, for
example, "time traveled between stops, time of each stop, distance traveled,
8
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
proximity to delivery point, routing of delivery points, and number of stops
made per vehicle [that can be analyzed to make the delivery and routing
processes more efficient]." Ans. 5---6 (citing Olsen ,r,r 2-3). As also shown
in Olsen's Figure 2, "vehicle telematics data" is received from vehicle
sensors 220, via telematics device (RFID tag) 120 and, as such, is separate
and distinct from "service data" input via handheld device 130.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claims 2-18, which Appellant does not argue separately.
With respect to independent claim 30, Appellant reiterates the same
arguments presented against claim 1. App. Br. 21-24. For the same reasons
discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 30.
OTHER ISSUES
In the event of further prosecution of this application, this panel
suggests that the Examiner consider reinstating the rejection of claims 1-18
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter, i.e., an abstract idea, in light of the two-step framework set out in the
Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S.
Ct. 2347 (2014) "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
According to Alice, the first step in the analysis is to "determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts," such as an abstract idea. Id. If the claims are directed to eligible
subject matter, the inquiry ends. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850
9
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second
step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims "individually
and 'as an ordered combination"' to determine whether there are additional
elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
In other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e.,
an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
"'[W]ell-understood, routine, [and] conventional activit[ies]' previously
known to the industry" are insufficient to transform an abstract idea into
patent-eligible subject matter. Id. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73).
Turning to the first step of the Alice inquiry, we determine claims 1-
18 and 30 are directed to a patent-ineligible "abstract idea" of "assessing
delivery performance" based on input operational data, which is considered
as a "fundamental economic practice" prevalent in our system of commerce,
like (1) the risk hedging in Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); (2) the
intermediated settlement in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-57; (3) verifying credit
card transactions in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d
1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011); (4) guaranteeing transactions in buySAFE, Inc.
v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (5) distributing
products over the Internet in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F .3d 709
(Fed. Cir. 2014); (6) determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing
organization in Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306
10
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
(Fed. Cir. 2015); and (7) pricing a product for sale in OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Assessing asset
efficiency such as delivery performance based on input operational data is
also a building block of a market economy and, like risk hedging and
intermediated settlement, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of§ 101.
See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
In addition, we also see the steps recited in Appellant's claims 1 and
30 are merely receiving, processing, comparing, and identifying data of a
specific content, e.g., operational data comprising vehicle telematics data
and service data. Information, as such, is intangible, and data analysis and
comparisons, without more, are abstract ideas. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v.
AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 fn.12 (2007); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355;
Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972). "[C]ollecting
information, including when limited to particular content (which does not
change its character as information)," is "within the realm of abstract ideas."
Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir.
2016); see also Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource, 654 F.3d
at 1370.
Turning to the second step of the Alice inquiry, we discern nothing in
Appellant's claims 1-18 and 30 that contain any "inventive concept" or add
anything "significantly more" to transform the abstract concept of assessing
delivery performance into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2357. For example, Appellant's abstract idea of "assessing delivery
performance" based on input operational data is not rooted in computer
11
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
technology; nor does it (1) provide any technical solution to a technical
problem unique to the Internet as required by DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) provide any
particular practical application as required by BASCOM Global Internet
Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1352, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2016); or (3) entail an unconventional technological solution to a
technological problem as required by Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, Appellant's
invention simply uses a generic computing device and network, shown, for
example, in Figures 1-23, to perform the abstract idea of "assessing delivery
performance" based on input operational data. Spec. 2: 14--22; Abstract.
The use of generic computer elements such as a computer system, memory
storage and processors do not transform an otherwise abstract idea into
patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has observed, "after
Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations
does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible." DDR, 773
F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358).
Because Appellant's claims 1 and 30 are directed to a patent-ineligible
abstract concept and do not recite something "significantly more" under the
second prong of the Alice analysis, we recommend the Examiner to reinstate
the§ 101 rejection of claims 1-18 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 4
4 In Appeal No. 2018-001050, we affirm a Section 101 rejection of similar
claims presented in sibling application Serial No. 13/435,592.
12
Appeal2017-008840
Application 13/435,686
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13