Ex Parte Chu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2017

13164437 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Dox 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313*1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/164,437 06/20/2011
28164 7590 11/17/2017
BGL/Accenture - Chicago
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
POBOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
King Fung Chu 10022/1950 1798
EXAMINER
ME1NECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KING FUNG CHU
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1 and 3-29 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to automated port
terminal data dissection, extraction, analytics, and report generation (Spec.,
para. 6). Claim 9, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
9. A method of analyzing data for services, resources and
activities data for port container terminal performance, the
method executable by a computing system having a processor
and memory, comprising:
receiving cost data associated with services, activities,
and resources provided for a plurality of customers of a port
container terminal from a plurality of data collection source
systems, the data collection source systems including
operations and enterprise management computer systems of a
port container terminal;
capturing positioning data and timing of the positioning
data for individual containers by positioning sensors on the
individual containers, wherein the positioning sensors are in
wireless communication with at least one of the plurality of
data collection source systems which transmit the positioning
data and the timing data to the computing system, wherein the
cost data associate with the positioning data and the timing of
the positioning data for the individual containers received from
the positioning sensors;
providing a customization interface for customizing a
multi-dimensional database, the customization interface
comprising:
a data box for selecting vessel operations activities,
barge operations activities and cross-terminal activities
for each of a plurality of import services, export services
and transshipment services offered by the container port
terminal to the customers;
a data box for selecting shipside resources and
landside resources consumable by the container port
terminal for each of the selected vessel operations
2
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
activities, the barge operations activities, and the cross­
terminal activities;
receiving, via the customization interface, a selection of
vessel operations activities, barge operations activities and
cross-terminal activities for each of the import services, export
services and transshipment services offered by the container
port terminal to the customers;
receiving, via the customization interface, a selection of
shipside resources and landside resources consumable by the
container port terminal for each of the selected vessel
operations activities, barge operations activities and cross­
terminal activities;
generating, by the processor, in response to the selection
of vessel operations activities, barge operations activities and
cross-terminal activities and the selection of shipside resources
and landside resources consumable by the container port
terminal:
a plurality of multi-dimensional relationships
associating each of the import services, export services
and transshipment services offered by the container port
terminal to the customers with the selected vessel
operations activities, barge operations activities and
cross-terminal activities, and
a plurality of multi-dimensional relationships
associating each of the selected vessel operations
activities, barge operations activities and cross-terminal
activities with the selected shipside resources and
landside resources consumable by the container port
terminal;
storing the multi-dimensional relationships in a multi­
dimensional database;
allocating the received data into a terminal performance
database by:
allocating services cost data to the selected import
services, export services and transshipment services
offered by the port container terminal to the customers,
allocating activities cost data to the selected vessel
operations activities, barge operations activities and
cross-terminal activities associated with the selected
3
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
import services, export services or transshipment
services, and
allocating resources cost data to shipside resources
and landside resources consumable by the port container
terminal to perform the vessel operations activities, the
barge operations activities, or the cross-terminal
activities;
defining, with the processor, a multidimensional
relationship between:
cost data for a service ordered by an individual
customer, the ordered service comprising a plurality of
individual container movements and being ordered from
the selected import services, export services and
transshipment services,
cost data for activities performed by the port
container terminal to complete an individual container
movement of the plurality of individual container
movements; and
cost data for resources consumed by the port
container terminal to complete the activities performed;
calculating, with the processor, individual cost items for
the individual container movement by calculating and
allocating direct costs and indirect costs for the ordered service,
activities performed and resources consumed to complete the
individual container movement according to the defined
multidimensional relationships, wherein:
calculating a total direct cost for the ordered service is
performed by adding:
direct costs for the selected vessel operations
activities, barge operations activities and cross-terminal
activities associated with the ordered service, and
direct costs for the selected shipside resources and
landside resources associated with the selected vessel
operations activities, barge operations activities and
cross-terminal activities associated with the ordered
service;
calculating a total indirect cost for the ordered service is
performed by:
4
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
determining indirect resource costs for the selected
vessel operations activities, barge operations activities
and cross-terminal activities relevant to the selected
shipside resources and landside resources consumed, and
allocating indirect resource costs as a fractional
average to one or more activities relevant to the resources
consumed;
mapping, from the terminal performance database into a
multidimensional database of the computing device with the
processor, the individual cost items by:
mapping allocated costs for the ordered service to
the selected vessel operations activities, barge operations
activities and cross-terminal activities associated with the
ordered service;
mapping the allocated costs for resources
consumed to the selected shipside resources and landside
resources associated with the selected vessel operations
activities, barge operations activities and cross-terminal
activities associated with the ordered service; and
generating, with the processor, a report in a user interface
of a display device to illustrate costs associated with individual
customers and one or more dimensions selected from the group
consisting of a specific service selected from the import
services, export services and transshipment services offered by
the container port terminal to the customers, a specific activity
selected from the vessel operations activities, barge operations
activities and cross-terminal activities performable by the
container port terminal, and a specific resource selected from
the shipside resources and landside resources consumable by
the container port terminal over specified periods of time.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1 and 3-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
5
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
2. Claims 1 and 3-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to show possession of the claimed invention.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
The Appellant argues that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is improper (App. Br. 23^15, Reply Br. 3-8). The Appellant argues
that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, that rejection fails to
provide evidence that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, that the
claims are directed to a specific technical problem in port terminal data
processing, that the claims are significantly more than an abstract idea, and
that the present claims are not in conflict with Alice and the Interim
Guidance (App. Br. 23-45).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper
(Final Rej. 2-7, Ans. 2, 3, 6-18).
We agree with the Examiner. Claim 9 is representative. Under 35
U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
6
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas”
are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
In judging whether claim 9 falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97
(2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the
claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then
consider the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered
combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the
nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id.
This is a search for an “inventive concept”—an element or combination of
elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more”
than the abstract idea itself. Id. The Court also stated that “the mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 2358.
Here, we determine that the claim is directed to the abstract concept of
tracking specific activity based costs in port operations. This is a
tundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce
and a method of organizing human activities, and is an abstract idea beyond
the scope of § 101.
We next consider whether additional elements of the claim, both
individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., whether the
claim does more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
7
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
abstract idea using generic computer components. We conclude that it does
not.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function
performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely
conventional. Each step of the claimed method does no more than require a
generic computer to perform a generic computer function.
Here the claim is not rooted in technology, but rather in the abstract
concept of tracking specific activity based costs, which in this case is in port
operations. Further, the elements of the claim fail to transform the claim
into “significantly more” than the abstract idea. For these reasons, the
rejection of claim 9, and its dependent claims which were not specifically
argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter is sustained.
We reach the same conclusion as to independent system claims 1,16,
22, and their dependent claims. Here, as in Alice, “the system claims are no
different in substance from the method claims. The method claims recite the
abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a
handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same
idea.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351. “[T]he mere recitation of a generic
computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply
if” is not enough for patent eligibility.” Id. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132
S. Ct. at 1294).
8
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner has determined that the Specification fails to provide
support for the claim limitations reciting that the system:
receives a selection of vessel operations activities, barge
operations activities and cross-terminal activities for each of the
import services, export services and transshipment services
offered by the container port terminal to the customers . ..
receives a selection of shipside resources and landside
resources consumable by the container port terminal for each of
the selected vessel operations activities, barge operations
activities and cross-terminal activities; . . . [and] generates
a plurality of multi-dimensional relationships associating
each of the import services, export services and transshipment
services offered by the container port terminal to the customers
with the selected vessel operations activities, barge operations
activities and cross-terminal activities, and
a plurality of multi-dimensional relationships associating
each of the selected vessel operations activities, barge
operations activities and cross-terminal activities with the
selected shipside resources and landside resources consumable
by the container port terminal
(Ans. 4). The Examiner has also determined that the claim has been
amended to clarify that various examples of “cost data” are allocated to
multiple services, operations, and resources without details to support these
methods (Ans, 5, 6).
In contrast, the Appellant argues the Specification provides support
for the cited claim limitations at Figures 6-12 and paragraphs 43, 50-59, and
65-72 (App. Br. 45^18, Reply Br. 8-11).
We agree with the Appellant. The factual inquiry for determining
whether a specification provides sufficient written description for the
claimed invention is whether the specification conveys with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant
9
Appeal 2016-004343
Application 13/164,437
was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An applicant shows
possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention
with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures,
figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, the portions of the claim cited in the rejection and listed above are
supported by the Specification. For example, Figure 6 shows a selection of
vessel activities, barge operations, and cross terminal activates; Figure 9
shows activities for individual customers; Figures 6-8 show multi­
dimensional relationships for the activities referenced; and paragraphs 50-59
for instance show the processing of “unit data costs.” For these reasons, this
rejection is not sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 3-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 3-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-29 is sustained.
AFFIRMED
10