Obviousness

The obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 10423918 requires identifying combinations of prior art references that would have made the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention.

US Patent 10423918 (the "'918 patent") claims a computer-implemented method, computer program product, and system for actively managed food delivery. The core elements involve monitoring product container conditions, comparing them to time-varying preferred ranges, automatically adjusting environmental controls, analyzing food history for prioritized delivery, and preventing delivery of unsafe/undesirable food. The priority date for the '918 patent is March 30, 2015.

The '918 patent itself references the following as prior art:

1. U.S. application Ser. No. 15/085,288, filed March 30, 2016, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/140,425, filed March 30, 2015. From the '918 patent's "Related Parent Applications" section, this corresponds to US10445684B2 ("Actively managed food delivery"). For this analysis, we will refer to US10445684B2 as "Mehring '684".
2. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/014,173, filed August 29, 2013, to Mehring et al.. This application eventually issued as US9336531B2 ("System and method for real-time fresh-food supply chain management"). For this analysis, we will refer to US9336531B2 as "Mehring '531".

We will primarily analyze Independent Claim 1, as Independent Claims 8 and 13 are a computer program product and system, respectively, that recite substantially the same functional steps as Claim 1. Therefore, the obviousness analysis for Claim 1 would directly apply to Claims 8 and 13.

Independent Claim 1 Breakdown and Obviousness Analysis:

Claim 1 of the '918 patent comprises the following steps:

1. Receiving, by the computer, status information about one or more product containers, wherein the status information includes conditions of each of the one or more product containers.
2. Determining, by the computer, preferred ranges for the conditions of each of the one or more product containers based on food products stored in the one or more product containers, wherein the preferred ranges change over time by a predefined amount per unit time, wherein the predefined amount and the unit time are specified in a profile associated with products stored in the one or more product containers.
3. Determining, by the computer, whether the received conditions from the one or more product containers are within the preferred ranges.
4. Sending, by the computer, a first command in response to determining that at least one of the received conditions is outside the determined preferred range, wherein the first command is sent to the one or more product containers for adjusting a setting of an environmental control unit coupled to the one or more product containers to adjust an environmental parameter in the one or more product containers to be at least similar to an ideal parameter specified in the profile.
5. Analyzing, by the computer, food product history corresponding to the food products stored in the one or more product containers, the food product history including several instances of previously-received status information about the one or more product containers.
6. Using, by the computer, the food product history to determine a prioritized delivery scheme of the one or more product containers, wherein the food product with the longest time since preparation is prioritized for delivery ahead of another of the food products prepared later.
7. Sending, by the computer, the prioritized delivery scheme to an individual associated with transporting the one or more product containers.
8. Evaluating, by the computer, the food product history corresponding to the food products and/or the conditions of each of the one or more product containers.
9. Determining, by the computer, whether any of the food products are unsafe and/or undesirable based on the evaluation of the food product history.
10. Sending, by the computer, a second command to not deliver certain food products in response to determining that they are unsafe and/or undesirable.

Combination of Mehring '531 and Mehring '684:

Mehring '531 (US9336531B2) discloses a system and method for real-time fresh-food supply chain management. It teaches monitoring environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity) of food products using sensors and wireless communication. The system includes a processor that receives this status information and compares it against a "product profile" to determine the remaining shelf-life of the food. The product profile specifies optimal environmental parameters and how deviations affect freshness. Mehring '531 focuses on prognostic analysis to predict remaining shelf life and optimize routing and pricing based on this information. It describes sending alerts or instructions to personnel (e.g., drivers) when conditions deviate. While it discusses monitoring and adjusting parameters for optimal freshness, it doesn't explicitly detail sending commands to the container to adjust an environmental control unit coupled to the container for real-time active environmental management during delivery. It also doesn't explicitly detail prioritized delivery based on longest time since preparation or commands to not deliver unsafe products based on history evaluation, though it does discuss adjusting prices/routes based on remaining shelf life.

Mehring '684 (US10445684B2), which shares a priority date with the '918 patent's provisional application, describes "Actively managed food delivery." Critically, Mehring '684 discloses a computer-implemented method for:

• Receiving status information from product containers, including conditions.
• Determining preferred ranges for these conditions based on food products, where these ranges change over time by a predefined amount per unit time, specified in a profile. This directly addresses step 2 of Claim 1.
• Determining if conditions are within ranges.
• Sending a command in response to conditions being outside the range to an environmental control unit coupled to the product container to adjust an environmental parameter. This directly addresses step 4 of Claim 1, demonstrating active in-transit environmental management.
• Analyzing food product history (including past status info).
• Using food product history to determine a prioritized delivery scheme, where food with the longest time since preparation is prioritized for delivery ahead of another of the food products prepared later. This directly addresses step 6 of Claim 1.
• Sending the prioritized delivery scheme to an individual transporting the containers. This directly addresses step 7 of Claim 1.
• Evaluating food product history and/or conditions to determine if food is unsafe and/or undesirable. This directly addresses step 8 of Claim 1.
• Sending a command to not deliver certain food products in response to determining they are unsafe/undesirable. This directly addresses step 10 of Claim 1.

Motivation to Combine:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention (March 2015 priority date) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Mehring '531 with the explicit active management and delivery prioritization features detailed in Mehring '684. Both patents are by the same inventors and share the same assignee (Zest Labs Inc.), indicating a common inventive thread and a natural progression of technology in this field.

1. General Motivation for Improved Food Delivery Management: The background of the '918 patent itself highlights the challenge in ensuring perishable products are managed properly and arrive in desirable condition, and that current systems often fail to utilize data until after delivery. Both Mehring '531 and Mehring '684 address this problem, with Mehring '684 providing a more advanced solution for active management during delivery. A POSA seeking to improve real-time fresh-food supply chain management (as in Mehring '531) would naturally look for ways to implement active environmental control and dynamic delivery prioritization.
2. Shared Problem and Solutions: Mehring '531 identifies the need for continuous monitoring and management of perishable food throughout the supply chain. Mehring '684 provides concrete mechanisms for real-time corrective actions (sending commands to environmental control units, step 4) and proactive delivery optimization (prioritizing delivery based on freshness/preparation time, steps 6-7), and safety checks (preventing delivery of unsafe food, steps 8-10) that directly address and enhance the goals of Mehring '531.
3. Enhancement of Monitoring and Shelf-Life Prediction: Mehring '531 focuses on predicting remaining shelf life and adjusting routes/prices. Adding the capabilities of Mehring '684 to actively adjust environmental conditions in the containers (step 4) directly extends and improves the ability to maintain the predicted shelf life, rather than just reacting to its degradation.
4. Improved Logistics and Waste Reduction: The dynamic, time-varying preferred ranges and the "longest time since preparation" prioritization (steps 2 and 6) disclosed in Mehring '684 provide sophisticated tools for optimizing logistics and reducing waste, which aligns perfectly with the objectives of managing a fresh-food supply chain as taught by Mehring '531. The ability to identify and prevent delivery of unsafe products (steps 8-10) also directly enhances food safety, a critical aspect of food delivery management.
5. Common Inventive Entity and Design Choice: Given that both Mehring '531 and Mehring '684 originate from the same inventors and assignee, it represents a natural and obvious design choice for a POSA to integrate the advanced active management features described in Mehring '684 into the broader supply chain management system of Mehring '531. Mehring '684 essentially elaborates on and provides specific, concrete implementations for the "actively managed" aspect of food delivery that Mehring '531 broadly aims to achieve.

Conclusion on Obviousness of Claim 1:

All elements of Claim 1 of US10423918 are explicitly disclosed in Mehring '684 (US10445684B2). Therefore, Claim 1 of the '918 patent is rendered obvious by Mehring '684 alone. The additional discussion regarding Mehring '531 serves to demonstrate the broader context and motivation within the field of food delivery management for such advancements.

Since Mehring '684 (US10445684B2) fully anticipates or renders obvious all the steps of Claim 1, it follows that Claims 8 and 13, which recite the same method steps in the context of a computer program product and system, would also be rendered obvious by Mehring '684.

Therefore, the claims of US10423918 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention based on the teachings of US10445684B2 alone, or in combination with US9336531B2.