11213149 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2015)

Ex Parte Malitski

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 22, 2015

11213149 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/213,149 08/25/2005 Konstantin N. Malitski 6741P068 8652 45062 7590 01/23/2015 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER JASMIN, LYNDA C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/23/2015 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 KONSTANTIN N. MALITSKI ____________ Appeal 2012-001096 Application 11/213,149 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1–9 and 14–22. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to handling order changes in transportation planning. Spec. 1. Appeal 2012-001096 Application 11/213,149 2 Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A computer implemented method comprising: receiving, in a computer, an order change for an order forming at least part of a transportation plan; evaluating, in a computer, an effect of the order change on the transportation plan; and adjusting the transportation plan only if the effect exceeds a threshold. Claims 1–9 and 14–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Arunapuram (US 2002/0019759 A1, iss. Feb. 15, 2002). We AFFIRM-IN-PART1. ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1 and 14 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Arunapuram discloses “adjusting the transportation plan if the effect exceeds the threshold,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 15. App. Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 4–5. Paragraph [98] of Arunapuram discloses implementing strict business rules around order changes so as balance between (1) the ability to update and/or correct order information after an optimization batch process and (2) the limited ability to provide continuous optimization over time. Given these disclosures, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill would understand that the rules would include standards (thresholds) as to when an 1 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. See 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (2014). Appeal 2012-001096 Application 11/213,149 3 order change would be allowed to trigger a reoptimization. Appellant’s assertions concerning the aforementioned are misplaced, as they solely focus on cut-off times, while the cited paragraph of Arunapuram addresses order changes in addition to cut-off times. We sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 14. Dependent Claims 2 and 15 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Arunapuram discloses “applying a set of conditional rules to the order change to determine if the order change affects a key parameter by at least a predefined amount,” as recited in dependent claims 2 and 15. See also App. Br. 9, 10. Our analysis of paragraph [98] of Arunapuram above is equally applicable here, as the aforementioned limitation merely defines “if the effect exceeds the threshold.” We sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2 and 15. Dependent Claims 3 and 16 We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Arunapuram discloses “prioritizing rules within a set; and evaluating the rules in order of priority which modifies the term of applying the set of conditional rules,” as recited in dependent claims 3 and 16. App. Br. 10. The Examiner cites paragraph [55] of Arunapuram as disclosing the prioritization of routing rules and gives examples of routing rules, but the Examiner has not articulated sufficiently, and we are unable to ascertain, the relationship between prioritizing routing rules and prioritizing the thresholds for triggering a reoptimization in paragraph [98]. We do not sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 3 and 16. Appeal 2012-001096 Application 11/213,149 4 Dependent Claims 4 and 17 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Arunapuram discloses “invalidating a shipment; and unplanning the order,” as recited in dependent claims 4 and 17. See also App. Br. 10–11. Appellant asserts that paragraph [100] of Arunapuram does not disclose the aforementioned claim limitation. We disagree. Paragraph [100] discloses the following: “In the event that the updated freight movement could not be handled by the carrier, the EX module sends the updated order back to the problem-solver and removes the original order from the PS database such that changes to that trip are now not allowed. Alternatively, the PS can then try to re-tender the updated order to a new carrier and, if accepted, cancel the original order.” (Emphasis added). We sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 4 and 17. Dependent Claims 5 and 18 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Arunapuram discloses “sending a cancellation message to a carrier if the shipment has been tendered; removing the order from transportation plan; and setting a status of all shipments of the order to an invalid state,” as recited in dependent claims 5 and 18. See also App. Br. 11. Appellant asserts that paragraph [100] of Arunapuram does not disclose the aforementioned claim limitation. We disagree. Paragraph [100] discloses the following: “In the event that the updated freight movement could not be handled by the carrier, the EX module sends the updated order back to the problem-solver and removes the original order from the PS database such that changes to that trip are now not allowed. Alternatively, the PS can Appeal 2012-001096 Application 11/213,149 5 then try to re-tender the updated order to a new carrier and, if accepted, cancel the original order.” Emphasis added. We sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 5 and 18. Dependent Claims 6 and 19 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Arunapuram discloses “sending a cancellation message to a carrier if the shipment has been tendered; and setting a status of the shipment to an invalid state,” as recited in dependent claims 6 and 19. See also App. Br. 11. Appellant asserts that paragraph [100] of Arunapuram does not disclose the aforementioned claim limitation. We disagree. Paragraph [100] discloses the following: “[T]he PS can then try to re-tender the updated order to a new carrier and, if accepted, cancel the original order.” We sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 6 and 19. Dependent Claims 7 and 20 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Arunapuram discloses “changing the status of the shipment to valid; and replanning the shipment,” as recited in dependent claims 7 and 20. See also App. Br. 11–12. Appellant asserts that paragraph [100] of Arunapuram does not disclose the aforementioned claim limitation. We disagree. Paragraph [100] discloses the following: “[T]he PS can then try to re-tender the updated order to a new carrier and, if accepted, cancel the original order.” The updated order, when the re-tender is accepted, will be fulfilled, so the shipment is valid. Appeal 2012-001096 Application 11/213,149 6 We sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 7 and 20. Dependent Claims 8 and 21 Appellant did not challenge the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 8 and 21. Accordingly, we sustain summarily the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 8 and 21. Dependent Claims 9 and 22 We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Arunapuram discloses “writing an alert to a database if the effect does not exceed the threshold,” as recited in dependent claims 9 and 22. See also App. Br. 12. The Examiner cites paragraph [81] of Arunapuram as disclosing orders falling below certain lower capacity thresholds, but the Examiner has not articulated sufficiently, and we are unable to ascertain, the relationship between these thresholds and the thresholds for triggering a reoptimization in paragraph [98]. We do not sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 9 and 22. Appeal 2012-001096 Application 11/213,149 7 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, 14, 15, and 17–21 is AFFIRMED. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3, 9, 16, and 22 is REVERSED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART rvb