Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 11037094 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To determine the obviousness of US patent 11037094, we must consider whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention, in light of prior art. This includes identifying combinations of prior art references and the motivation a POSA would have had to combine them.

The priority date of US11037094B2 is March 30, 2015. Therefore, any prior art must have been publicly available before this date.

Independent Claim 1 Analysis

Independent Claim 1 describes a computer-implemented method for generating a report about a food product delivery process, including:

• Receiving status information from a product container with a food-specific profile that includes time-varying ideal handling conditions and sensor-derived conditions (at least temperature).
• Determining if received status information is within preferred ranges derived from the profile.
• Storing status information and the determination.
• Sending a command for corrective action if conditions are outside preferred ranges.
• Prior to delivery, analyzing the performance of entities based on the determination compared to ideal conditions.
• Generating a report, including a food safety report.

A POSA in March 2015 would likely have been familiar with:

• Product monitoring systems: Systems that use sensors to collect data (like temperature) from containers during transport.
• Profiles for perishable goods: Establishing ideal environmental parameters (e.g., temperature ranges) for specific perishable products, which might even vary over the product's shelf life or transport duration.
• Real-time data analysis: The ability to compare collected sensor data against predefined thresholds or ranges.
• Automated alerts/commands: Sending notifications or triggering actions based on deviations from desired conditions.
• Performance reporting and auditing: Generating reports on compliance with handling procedures, especially in industries with safety regulations like food delivery.

To render Claim 1 obvious, we would need to find prior art that, individually or in combination, discloses or suggests each element of the claim, along with a motivation to combine them.

The patent itself describes "those shipping products are currently unable to utilize product data collected during the shipping process until after the product has been delivered." This suggests a novelty in real-time or pre-delivery analysis and intervention.

Potential Combination and Motivation:

1. Reference A (General Product Monitoring System): A hypothetical prior art reference disclosing a system for monitoring environmental conditions (e.g., temperature) within a shipping container using sensors and wirelessly transmitting this data to a central system for storage.
2. Reference B (Food Safety/Quality Management System): A hypothetical prior art reference disclosing a system for managing food product quality, where each food product has an associated profile defining ideal handling conditions (e.g., temperature ranges, potentially time-varying) and a system for generating reports on adherence to these conditions after delivery.

Motivation to Combine A and B:

A POSA would be motivated to combine Reference A and Reference B to address the known problem of not being able to utilize product data until after delivery, especially for perishable food products. The stated problem in US11037094's background section highlights that "those shipping products may not realize that a shipment of perishable products has surpassed a product tolerance until after it has been delivered, e.g., after receipt, upon their inspection." By integrating the real-time monitoring capabilities of Reference A with the food-specific profiles and reporting of Reference B, a POSA would understand that they could actively monitor the food product during transit, identify deviations from ideal conditions before delivery, send corrective commands, and generate a pre-delivery performance report including food safety aspects. This combination would lead to improved food quality, reduced waste, and enhanced adherence to safety regulations, directly addressing the shortcomings acknowledged in the patent's background. The changing ideal handling conditions over time would be a natural extension of existing food profiles, allowing for more dynamic and accurate monitoring, particularly for prepared meals where optimal temperatures might decrease over time to prevent overcooking.

Independent Claim 10 Analysis

Independent Claim 10 is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method of Claim 1, with additional specifics regarding:

• Pre-heating and/or pre-cooling conditions as part of a meal preparation procedure.
• A two-tiered command system: a first command to an individual/dispatcher, and a second automated command to an environmental control unit if inactivity is detected.
• Autonomous maintenance of pre-heating/pre-cooling conditions by the environmental control unit.

A POSA in March 2015 would have known about:

• Environmental control units in containers: Delivery bags or containers with active heating/cooling elements.
• Automated control: Systems that automatically adjust environmental settings based on sensor inputs.
• User alerts and manual intervention: Notifying a human operator to take action.
• Automated fallback: Systems that take automated action if a human operator fails to respond.

Potential Combination and Motivation for Claim 10:

Building on the combination of Reference A and Reference B, we could add:

1. Reference C (Smart Delivery Container with Environmental Controls): A hypothetical prior art reference disclosing a delivery container with integrated sensors and an environmental control unit (e.g., heater, cooler) capable of maintaining a specific temperature range, potentially pre-heated or pre-cooled. The reference might also disclose that this environmental control can be adjusted remotely or automatically based on sensor readings.
2. Reference D (Workflow Management System with Escalation): A hypothetical prior art reference describing a system for managing tasks or workflows, where an initial alert or instruction is sent to a primary individual, and if no action is taken within a predefined time, an escalated action (e.g., an automated system command) is triggered.

Motivation to Combine A, B, C, and D:

A POSA, aiming to further refine the active management of food delivery (as motivated by the combination of A and B), would logically consider integrating smart delivery containers (Reference C) and robust command escalation (Reference D). The problem of perishable food delivery demands not just monitoring, but also effective intervention. The motivation to combine these would be to create a more resilient and efficient delivery system.

• Integrating Reference C with the monitoring (A) and profile-based management (B) would allow for active adjustment of the container's environment, moving beyond just sending alerts. This would be particularly obvious for maintaining precise temperature for pre-heated or pre-cooled meals, as described in the patent (e.g., "the controller may adjust the environment settings as needed by turning on or off a heater, turning on or off an air conditioner, opening or closing a vent, turning on or off a dehumidifier, etc.").
• The two-tiered command structure (Reference D) provides a critical safety net. While an initial alert to a driver (first command) might be sufficient for minor adjustments, a POSA would recognize the need for automated intervention (second command) if the driver is unable or fails to respond. This directly addresses potential human error or resource limitations during delivery, ensuring that critical environmental conditions are maintained, especially when "the delivery bag may not always have sufficient resources (e.g., power, capabilities, etc.) to manage the environment inside the delivery bag" or when a driver is unresponsive, leading to "detecting inactivity by an individual." The autonomous maintenance of pre-heating/pre-cooling conditions by the environmental control unit is a direct application of automated control described in Reference C, further enhanced by the feedback loop enabled by the overall system.

Independent Claim 14 Analysis

Independent Claim 14 is a system claim essentially mirroring the method of Claim 1. The obviousness analysis for Claim 14 would largely follow the same reasoning as for Claim 1, as it describes a system (processor and logic) configured to perform the method steps.

Potential Combination and Motivation for Claim 14:

The same combination of Reference A and Reference B, along with the motivation discussed for Claim 1, would apply here. The "processor and logic integrated with and/or executable by the processor" would be the standard implementation for any computer-implemented method. A POSA would understand how to implement the method steps as described in Claim 1 using conventional computing hardware and software.

It is important to note that without specific prior art references, this analysis remains hypothetical. A definitive obviousness determination would require a thorough prior art search and direct comparison with the elements of the claims.