DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and amendments filed 01/29/2026.
Claims 9, 19-20, and 22 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 10, 23 have been amended.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 21, and 23 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 10, 18 recite in part the following: “…wherein a delivery plan comprises a path the at least one item will take through the plurality of distribution facilities associated with the distribution network…”; respectfully the underlined feature lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets the feature to read “…wherein a delivery plan comprises a path the at least one item will take through a plurality of distribution facilities associated with the distribution network...”
Independent claims 1, 10, 18 also recite in part the following: “…determining, at the one or more processors, that the at least one item is located at one of the one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities…”; respectfully, the repetition of “the one of” appears to either be an error on the part of the claim draftsman or applicant has left out an intended object. Regardless, the phrase is unclear and held to be indefinite as it is not clear what the applicant is intending to convey. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the phrase is question to have an extraneous recitation of “the one of” and therefore reads as follows: “…determining, at the one or more processors, that the at least one item is located at one of the one [[of the one]] or more subsequent distribution facilities…”
Independent claims 1, 10, 18 also recite in part the following: “…automatically rerouting, in item processing equipment at the distribution facility, the at least one item toward the intended distribution facility according to the updated delivery plan via item processing equipment at the determined one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities. – underlines added for emphasis.
Respectfully, it is not clear whether this "item processing equipment at the distribution facility" is intended to be the same, or a different equipment, than the recited "item processing equipment at the determined one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities"; e.g. is it a different facility or is the determined one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities intended to be a subset of facilities of this “the distribution facility”. This is not clear. Because the claim is not clear, the claims are held to be indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted to reflect the state of the art as disclosed per the cited prior art references. Nonetheless, correction or clarification is required.
Dependent claims 2-8, 11-17, 21, 23 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 10, 18:
determine, based on the electronic record of the at least one item and the set of processing information data associated with the at least one item retrieved from the memory, that arrival scan data is missing for the at least one item at an intended distribution facility;
determine, based on the determination that arrival scan data is missing for the at least one item, at a first point of time that the at least one item has a delivery routing issue;
determine a last known scan location of the at least one item from the plurality of distribution facilities, wherein the last known scan location is the particular distribution facility of the plurality of distribution facilities where the arrival scan data was updated;
determine one or more other items scanned at the last known scan location;
determine one or more subsequent distribution facilities the one or more other items were moved to;
determine, based on the determined one or more subsequent distribution facilities, that the at least one item is located at one of the one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities
determine an updated delivery plan for the at least one item having the delivery routing issue, wherein the updated delivery plan comprises an updated path the at least one item will take [is intended to take] through the plurality of distribution facilities from the determined one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities to the intended destination of the at least one item.
the notification comprising the delivery routing issue and the updated delivery plan
…reroute, in item processing equipment at the distribution facility, the at least one item toward the intended distribution facility according to the updated delivery plan…
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, these specific aforementioned limitations as drafted, are a high-level business decision regarding operating procedures to update a delivery plan after it is determined that an initial or intended delivery plan has failed initiated by missing package arrival data (e.g. missing scan data), and then notifying a customer regarding confirmed issue(s) [i.e. the delivery routing issue], and the updated plan, and finally rerouting the item according to the updated delivery plan as the business deems necessary to reroute such item/package (all of which are business decisions made by pre-existing courier companies such as USPS, FedEX, UPS, DHL, Amazon, etc…) and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Despite the plethora of steps recited in the claims, these identified steps are nothing more than very generic business decisions regarding ideas long existent in the courier industry; they are not technical solutions to a technical problem. They are business decisions regarding operating procedures pertaining to expected common business scenarios. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a distribution network, comprising: a memory configured to store electronic records of a plurality of items received by the distribution network; and a processor, etc…) does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts using generic computer components, or link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case the business decision to track packages, reroute packages, and generate notifications regarding such delivery/rerouting if deemed of business importance) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, storage, and transmittal of information used in tracking packages, etc…). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are, as exemplified in the features of claim 1 (which are all features not specifically pointed out as encompassing the abstract idea) as follows:
A system for processing items in a distribution network, comprising: a memory configured to store electronic records of a plurality of items received by the distribution network; and one or more processors configured to: receive item processing information from a distribution facility, the item processing information comprising a plurality of sets of processing information data associated with a status of at least one item of the plurality of items in the distribution network, the plurality of sets of processing information data comprising arrival scan data and a scan made at a location that is not included in a delivery plan, wherein the delivery plan comprises a path the at least one item will take through a plurality of distribution facilities associated with the distribution network from an origin to an intended destination of the at least one item; store the item processing information on the memory; retrieve an electronic record of the at least one item and a set of processing information data associated with the at least one item from the memory, wherein the set of processing information data is automatically updated with arrival scan data from each particular distribution facility of the plurality of distribution facilities when the at least one item arrives at the particular distribution facility;… send a notification to a computing device of an intended recipient of the at least one item,… automatically [perform the reroute step]
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not technique nor technical solution for “receiving” item processing information regardless of the description of such received information, nor is it a technique of “stor[ing] the item processing information data on the memory” nor is it “retrieving” an electronic record, regardless of the data contained therein, nor is it a technical solution to “sending” a notification nor is it any particular technique or method by which to “automate” a process. These additional elements are recited at a very high-level of generality and do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts within a generic computer environment, or link them to a field of use (e.g. tracking delivery of goods/services for courier services such as USPS, FedEX, UPS, DHL, Amazon, and other courier services, etc…) or are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, retrieval, storage, and transmittal) in regards to the already identified abstract idea and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. by one or more processors) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. tracking delivery of goods/services for courier services), or as insignificant extra-solution activity. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 2 recites: “wherein the notification further comprises one or more of an updated delivery date, an upgraded service class or an explanation of the delivery routing issue for the at least one item.” However, description of data being conveyed does not further illuminate how the core of the abstract idea is intended to be performed nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Instead, the descriptions merely further convey that the abstract idea is a set of business decisions; e.g. a business decision to communicate with a business’ customer information regarding a transaction such as an updated delivery date, an upgraded service class or an explanation of the delivery routing issue for the at least one item – which falls squarely within Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are therefore not patent ineligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 10, 18 are rejected u under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawson et al. (US 12,099,961 B2; hereinafter, “Lawson”) in view of Wilkinson et al. (US 2017/0364860 A1; hereinafter, “Wilkinson”)
Claims 1, 10, 18: (Currently amended/ previously presented)
Pertaining to claims 1, 10, and 18, exemplified in the method steps of claim 10, Lawson as shown teaches the following:
A method of processing items in a distribution network, comprising:
storing, at a memory, electronic records of a plurality of items received by the distribution network (Lawson, see at least [19:15-36] regarding storing “package [item] records” in “database 120”, etc… );
receiving item processing information from a distribution facility, the item processing information comprising a plurality of sets of processing information data associated with a status of at least one item of the plurality of items in the distribution network, the plurality of sets of processing information data comprising arrival scan data and a scan made at a location that is not included in a delivery plan, wherein a delivery plan comprises a path the at least one item will take through the plurality of distribution facilities associated with the distribution network from an origin to an intended destination of the at least one item (Lawson, see citations noted supra, further in view of at least Figs. 1-6, Table 1 at [7:25-55] and at least [11:1-14:18] regarding “Arrival at unit scan” called AAU scan [arrival scan data] and determining whether AAU scan is missing and “…The server 110 also receives the intended delivery point for the package from the package database 120, and the geographic location information for the intended delivery point from the address management database 124, via the package database 120. The server 110 determines… the delivery scan occurred at a location other than the intended delivery point [a scan made at a location that is not included in a delivery plan],… for example, at a different delivery point (which could indicate delivery to the incorrect address)…”),
storing the item processing information on the memory (Lawson, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [5:1-10], e.g.: “…The package database 120 stores, processes, receives, and manipulates data regarding package delivery in the distribution network. The package database 120 can store, use, and process information gathered from other components of the delivery network, such as sorting equipment, scanners, and the like. Any scan information generated when a package is scanned as it is inducted into and moves through the distribution network, and is ultimately delivered is stored in the package database 120. The package database 120 can store scan information, such as information about scan events for packages, delivery points for the items to be delivered, delivery schedules such as estimated delivery times and dates, and the like. The package database 120 is in communication with a mobile computing device 122…”)
retrieving an electronic record of the at least one item (Lawson, see citations noted supra, including also at least [19:15-35], e.g.: “…the server 110 can query [for retrieving] the package database 120 for all packages [items] for which package records [electronic record] exist for a specified time period… the server can identify for analysis those packages analysis for which an active package record exists. The package records can be entries in the package database 140 which are active, that is, which have not yet been delivered, or which have not expired from non-use…”) and a set of processing information data associated with the at least one item from the memory, wherein the set of processing information data is automatically updated with arrival scan data from each particular distribution facility of the plurality of distribution facilities when the at least one item arrives at the particular distribution facility (Lawson, see citations noted supra, e.g. per [5:1-15] and [11:10-55]: “…For a scan event, the server 110 analyzes the scan data, including the location data from the package database 120… The server obtains and analyzes scan data [a type of processing information], including delivery scans and the associated location information from the package database 120. The server 110 also receives the intended delivery point for the package from the package database 120, and the geographic location information…”; scan data is updated in the database every time a package is scanned.);
determining, based on the electronic record of the at least one item and the set of processing information data associated with the at least one item retrieved from the memory, that arrival scan data is missing for the at least one item at an intended distribution facility (Lawson, see citations noted supra, [7:25-55] and at least [11:1-14:18] regarding “Arrival at unit scan” called AAU scan [arrival scan data] and determining whether AAU scan is missing. For example, per at least [11:15-65]: The location data is compared to known locations, such as delivery points in the distribution network. The address management database 124 can also store geographic location information, such as a geofence, for distribution network facilities… The server 110 determines whether the scan of the package occurred at the intended delivery point. This determination can be done by determining whether the location of the mobile computing device 122 at the time of the package scan was within a geofence established for the intended delivery point, or was within a threshold distance of the delivery point, as described herein. If the delivery scan occurred at a location other than the intended delivery point, but occurred, for example, at a different delivery point (which could indicate delivery to the incorrect address),…; and per [13:55-14:18]: Rule 20 analyzes whether there is a missing AAU scan. An AAU scan should occur when an item arrives at a distribution network facility from another facility… );
based on the determination that arrival scan data is missing for the at least one item, determining, at one or more processors, at a first point of time that the at least one item has a delivery routing issue (Lawson, see citations noted supra, e.g. per [13:25-36]: “…the server 110 can forecast whether the package is likely to meet the SDD (scheduled delivery date) based on the existing information. If the server 110 forecasts that the package is likely to miss its SDD [determining, at one or more processors, at a first point of time that the at least one item has a delivery routing issue], then an alert can be generated, and the server 110 can send additional instructions to the facilities database 140 to handle that package differently, such as on an expedited basis…”; Examiner notes that although Lawson determines AAU scan data is missing [arrival scan data is missing], as already shown supra, and as noted herein determines that there is a delivery routing issue, e.g. his determination that a package [item] is predicted to miss its scheduled delivery date (SSD), Lawson may not in a single embodiment explicitly state that his prediction of the package missing its SSD is based on his determination that AAU scan data is missing. However, as would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, data which is missing regarding location of an item which is scheduled for immediate delivery likely presents a delivery issue; i.e. if item has been lost by virtue of it not having been scanned at a location as expected, then it is also likely not possible to deliver such item at least until the item is found. Therefore, Lawson’s teachings provide motivation to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching to predicate Lawson’s prediction of a missed SSD based on his determination that AAU scan data is missing because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
determining, at the one or more processors, a last known scan location of the at least one item from the plurality of distribution facilities, wherein the last known scan location is the particular distribution facility of the plurality of distribution facilities where the arrival scan data was updated (Lawson, see citations noted supra, again e.g. per [13:55-14:18], e.g. “… the server 110 can identify a package scan on item processing equipment from the facilities database 140… The server can initiate an inquiry at other data sources to determine where the package was inducted and what the issue was. The server 110 can query sources in the system 100 or other sources to identify, based on visibility information, the likely induction point of the package…”);
determining, at the one or more processors, one or more other items scanned at the last known scan location (Lawson, see citations noted supra, again e.g. per [13:55-14:18], e.g. “…The server 110 can initiate analysis of other packages or items that were inducted at that induction point to see if there is a pattern of failure at a particular induction point (such as a post office), in a specific geographic area, etc…”);
determining, at the one or more processors, one or more subsequent distribution facilities the one or more other items were moved to (Lawson, see citations noted supra, again e.g. per [13:55-14:18], teaching: determining “other packages or items that were inducted at that induction point” [subsequent distribution facilities]);
based on the determined one or more subsequent distribution facilities, determining, at the one or more processors, that the at least one item is located at one of the one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities (Lawson, see citations noted supra, again e.g. per [13:55-14:18], teaching: determining “likely induction point” [the at least one item is located at one of the one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities]);
determining, at the one or more processors, an updated delivery plan for the at least one item having the delivery routing issue, (Lawson, see citations noted supra, again e.g. per [6:60-7:15], e.g. regarding: “…information [updated delivery plan] about where a package is expected to be [updated path] at certain days/times as it moves through the distribution network….” in view of [13:1-14:18], teaching: “…The server can provide notifications and instructions via the user interface 150 when such problems are identified…” and note [21:5-10]: “…If a certain piece of item processing equipment is associated with a high number of failures due to late delivery, such as not meeting an SSD, the server 110 can reroute items processed in the facility where the item processing equipment is located to another piece of item processing equipment…”) wherein the updated delivery plan comprises an updated path the at least one item will take through the plurality of distribution facilities from the determined one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities to the intended destination of the at least one item (Lawson, see citations noted supra, e.g. in view of at least [6:60-7:15], e.g.: “…the facility database 140 can store and use information regarding package movement [path] through the distribution network, including prospective information [delivery plan] about where a package is expected to be [updated path] at certain days/times as it moves through the distribution network. Each package and its expected delivery date/time, any issues associated therewith, rerouting, delays, etc., can be identified and stored in the facility database 140…”);
sending a notification to a computing device of an intended recipient of the at least one item, the notification comprising the delivery routing issue and the updated delivery plan (Lawson, see citations noted supra, again e.g. per [6:60-7:15] and [13:1-14:18], teaching: “…If the server 110 forecasts that the package is likely to miss its SDD [delivery routing issue], then an alert [notification] can be generated, and the server 110 can send additional instructions [e.g. a plan] to the facilities database 140 to handle that package differently, such as on an expedited basis [e.g. the updated plan]…The server can provide notifications and instructions via the user interface 150 when such problems are identified…”; In view of these teachings, Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that Lawson’s “prospective information [delivery plan] about where a package is expected to be [updated path] at certain days/times as it moves through the distribution network” may be substituted for his “additional instructions [sent] to the facilities database 140 to handle that package differently, such as on an expedited basis [e.g. the updated plan]” and therefore sent as part of his alert [notification] with motivation to supply more meaningful information to a supervisor or other intended recipient, e.g. entity interested in the shipment and updated delivery information of the package in question. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such information along with Lawson’s alert because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Although Lawson teaches the aforementioned limitations and also teaches automatic “rerouting” of packages [items] by his server, e.g. per citations noted supra including at least [21:5-11]: “…the server 110 can reroute items processed in the facility where the item processing equipment is located to another piece of item processing equipment…”, he may not explicitly teach the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Lawson in view of Wilkinson teaches the following:
automatically rerouting, in item processing equipment at the distribution facility, the at least one item toward the intended distribution facility according to the updated delivery plan via item processing equipment at the determined one of the one or more subsequent distribution facilities. (Wilkinson, see at least [0182]-[0184], teaching, e.g.: “…the system [item processing equipment at the determined subsequent distribution facility] may further determine a new route for the delivery agent to reroute the return item(s)… the delivery instructions may be provided to a delivery agent via a user device [item processing equipment at the distribution facility] carried by the delivery agent. For example, when a delivery agent retrieves a return item, the delivery agent may scan the item with the user device and receive a new destination for the return item. In some embodiments, the user device may instruct the delivery agent to place the item into a partially filled or empty delivery container destined for the second customer. In some embodiments, the user device may further be configured to print out a new label and/or packing slip for the return item. In some embodiments, the user device may further be configured to provide destination addresses and/or route guidance for the delivery agent for rerouting one or more return items. In some embodiments, the delivery agent may comprise one or more automatons, semi-automatons, and unmanned delivery robots and/or vehicles. In step 1803, the system may send item retrieval and navigation instructions to the delivery robot and/or vehicle to perform the rerouting…”; applicant’s terms “distribution facility” and “item processing equipment” are broad and the original disclosure does not provide specific limiting definitions of these terms and therefore the terms are broadly interpreted to encompass their plain language meaning which read on the teachings of Wilkinson as noted supra.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Wilkinson (directed towards techniques of automatically rerouting at least one item toward an intended distribution facility) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lawson (already directed towards tracking items out for delivery, scanning packages at various distribution facilities, and updating a delivery plan and alerting clients of issues with meeting scheduled delivery dates, etc…) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Wilkinson to the device/method of Lawson in order to realize Lawson would benefit by implementing the technique of Wilkinson to controlling item processing equipment at his checkpoint [other distribution facility] to reroute an item toward the intended checkpoint [distribution facility] because Lawson and Wilkinson are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 2-8, 11-17, 21 are rejected u under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawson et al. (US 12,099,961 B2; hereinafter, “Lawson”) in view of Wilkinson et al. (US 2017/0364860 A1; hereinafter, “Wilkinson”) and further in view of Kujat et al. (US 10,460,332 B1 B1; hereinafter, "Kujat).
Claims 2, 11: (previously presented)
Although Lawson/Wilkinson teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, they may not explicitly teach the below nuance. However, regarding this feature, as shown Lawson in view of Kujat teaches the following:
…wherein the notification further comprises one or more of an updated delivery date, an upgraded service class or an explanation of the delivery routing issue for the at least one item (Kujat, see at least Figs. 4, 8, 9 [6:10-40] “…For example, the consumer may receive the notification with a new description 216 of the predicted delivery performance 210. The new description 216 may identify the change (e.g., storm in your area), the impact [confirmed delivery issue] to the predicted delivery time (from 12:00 pm to 3:00 pm) and the change to the certainty level (e.g., from 95% to 97%). As such, the consumer may be always up-to-date on when to expect the arrival of the item.”; and [20:21-22:35], teaching, e.g.: “…the prediction service may determine progress of a delivery of the item, may update a corresponding predicted performance, and may notify the consumer of some or all of the updates. …Based on this impact, the prediction service may update the delivery time …At operation 812, the prediction service may notify the consumer of the update…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Kujat which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lawson to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Kujat to the device/method of Lawson in order to perform the limitation in question because Lawson and Kujat are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 3, 12: (previously presented)
Although Lawson/Wilkinson teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, they may not explicitly teach the below nuance. However, regarding this feature, as shown Lawson in view of Kujat teaches the following:
…wherein the plurality of sets of processing information data additionally comprise two or more of: out for delivery scan data or an existence of the out for delivery scan data, acceptance scan data or an existence of the acceptance scan data, item delivery scan data or an existence of the item delivery scan data, a delivery scan made in a location that is over a predetermined distance away from an actual destination coordinate, a discrepancy between an electronic record of the at least one item and the acceptance scan data of an actually received item, pre-shipment information sent to the distribution network but no acceptance scan made within a predetermined amount of time, or out for delivery scan made but no delivery scan made by a predetermined local time, or an item undeliverable as addressed (Kujat, see again citations noted supra, e.g. per at least [20:21-22:35], teaching, e.g.: “…Upon the start of the delivery (e.g., in association with a scan [out for delivery scan data] of the item at a facility of the merchant and/or the carrier), the service may transmit information to the prediction service indicating the start… As the barcode is scanned along various points of the delivery route [item delivery scan data], the service of the merchant or carrier may transmit information about the scanning, including a time and location, to the prediction service. In another example,…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Kujat which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lawson to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Kujat to the device/method of Lawson in order to perform the limitation in question because Lawson and Kujat are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 4, 13: (previously presented)
Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown Kujat teaches the following: …wherein the plurality of sets of processing information data additionally comprise the arrival scan data and the out for delivery scan data (Kujat, see at [20:21-22:35], teaching, e.g.: “…Upon the start of the delivery (e.g., in association with a scan [out for delivery scan data] of the item at a facility of the merchant and/or the carrier), the service may transmit information to the prediction service indicating the start… As the barcode is scanned along various points of the delivery route [item delivery scan data], the service of the merchant or carrier may transmit information about the scanning, including a time and location, to the prediction service. In another example,…”; per at least [12:10-20]: “…The delivery database 444 may store, for each delivered item, information about the delivery [arrival scan data], such as when the source location, the destination location, the route, the used delivery method, the taken route, the actual delivery time, the contexts, the conditions, and other information…”), and the method further comprising: determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, whether the out for delivery scan data for the at least one item is missing; confirming, by at least one of the one or more processors, that the at least one item has the delivery routing issue in response to determining that both the arrival scan data and the out for delivery scan data are missing (Kujat, see at citation noted supra including again at least [20:21-22:35], teaching: an item may not pass a predicted checkpoint, and therefore Examiner notes that expected scan data [out for delivery scan data] will be missing and Kujat teaches checkpoints may include points along an expected path where item may be scanned [again, out for delivery scan data] as well as a destination checkpoint where an item may be scanned [arrival scan data]. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that if 2x pieces of data indicating an item is missing and not in route, e.g. not scanned along the expected route and not scanned at its destination as expected, then this would also be a mechanism to determine Kujat’s “impact” [delivery issue] on the expected item delivery because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claims 5, 14: (previously presented)
Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown Kujat teaches the following: …further comprising: determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, a delivery scan location of an item where a delivery scan for the at least one item has occurred; comparing, by at least one of the one or more processors, the delivery scan location with an actual destination coordinate of the at least one item; and before confirming that the at least one item has the delivery routing issue, determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, the delivery scan location is over a predetermined distance away from the actual destination coordinate (Kujat, see again at least Fig. 9 and at least [20:21-22:35], each checkpoint includes location information, predicted time information, and actual time information. Furthermore, Kujat teaches that the package and or carrier vehicle may continuously transmit position information. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare transmitted location and time information of a package/carrier vehicle against predicted checkpoints such that if a transmitted location and time information indicates the package and/or carrier vehicle is some threshold distance from the predicted checkpoint, then there will be an “impact” [delivery issue] on the item delivery and this should be done before deciding there is a delivery issue which is already implied by Kujat’s teaching regarding calculation of “the level of certainty” which “may be expressed as a quantitative likelihood 65 (e.g., 75% probability), as a qualitative metric (e.g., a high chance), and/or in other certainty formats” and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claims 6, 15: (previously presented)
Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown Kujat teaches the following: …further comprising: retrieving, by at least one of the one or more processors, arrival scan data (Kujat, citations noted supra and also at least [14:65-15:5], e.g.: “…At operation 510, the prediction service may determine that the item was delivered to the destination location [arrival scan data]…”) and acceptance scan data on the at least one item (Kujat again, see at least Fig. 9 and at least [28:35-40], e.g.: “…determining an actual time for when the unit of the item was received [accepted] at the destination location associated with the consumer…”; and see again [4:55-7:40] “…For example, the predicted delivery performance 128 may include a predicted delivery time and a level of certainty for when the item may arrive at a delivery location, 60 such as the consumer's location… carrier information may be retrieved and tracked from the services 352, 354, 356, and/or 358 between the time the item leaves a source destination and the time the item arrives at a destination location…”; and see [20:44-22:35], e.g. a checkpoint may be destination 930 [arrival and/or place of acceptance] checkpoint 912D where a scan is predicted/expected to take place.); comparing, by at least one of the one or more processors, the electronic record of the at least one item with item information contained in the arrival scan data and the acceptance scan data; and before confirming that the at least one item has the delivery routing issue, determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, that there is a discrepancy between the electronic record of the at least one item and the item information contained in the arrival scan data and the acceptance scan data (Kujat, again see at the citations noted supra and again at least [20:21-22:35]. In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds that Kujat provides motivation to perform these steps to enable his determination of “impact” [delivery issue] on the item delivery for various scenarios. Therefore, the Examiner finds it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare information retrieved from Kujat’s “predicted delivery performance” [electronic record] and information received from Kujat’s scanning the item at the “destination” [arrival] location and/or Kujat’s information regarding “an actual time for when the unit of the item was received [accepted] at the destination location associated with the consumer” to determine Kujat’s “impact” [delivery issue] on the item delivery, e.g. in the scenario when predicted/expected time is before actual arrival and/or time of receipt [acceptance], then there is an impact to the expected delivery of the item which should be communicated to the consumer and other interested parties, and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.).
Claims 7, 16: (previously presented)
Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown Kujat teaches the following:
…wherein the determining comprises: retrieving, by at least one of the one or more processors, pre-shipment information of an item (Kujat, see again at least citations noted supra, Fig. 9 and again see [20:44-22:35], e.g. check-point 912A is at “source 920” and retrieval of scanned item information taken at the source is retrieval of pre-shipment information of such item.); determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, whether an item acceptance scan for the at least one item has occurred (Kujat again, see at least Fig. 9 and at least [28:35-40], e.g.: “…determining an actual time for when the unit of the item was received [accepted] at the destination location associated with the consumer…”; and see again [4:55-7:40] “…For example, the predicted delivery performance 128 may include a predicted delivery time and a level of certainty for when the item may arrive at a delivery location, 60 such as the consumer's location… carrier information may be retrieved and tracked from the services 352, 354, 356, and/or 358 between the time the item leaves a source destination and the time the item arrives at a destination location…”; and see [20:44-22:35], e.g. a checkpoint may be destination 930 [arrival and/or place of acceptance] checkpoint 912D where a scan is predicted/expected to take place.); determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, whether the item acceptance scan for the at least one item has occurred within a predetermined time from a time when the pre-shipment information of the item was received (Kujat, again see citations noted supra as well as [20:44-22:35], e.g. checkpoint scan data may be compared to predicted performance data which predicted a time at which an item would pass a checkpoint; the check-point includes destination 930 where customer may receive [accept] the item.); and before confirming that the at least one item has the delivery routing issue, determining by at least one of the one or more processors, that the item acceptance scan has not been made or that the item acceptance scan has not been made within the predetermined time (Kujat, again see at the citations noted supra and again at least [20:21-22:35]. In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds that Kujat provides motivation to perform this step to enable his determination of “impact” [delivery issue] on the item delivery for various scenarios. Therefore, the Examiner finds it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare information retrieved from the “predicted delivery performance” and information received from scanning the item at the “destination 930” [arrival/acceptance location] and/or the information regarding “an actual time for when the unit of the item was received [accepted] at the destination location associated with the consumer” to determine Kujat’s “impact” [delivery issue] on the item delivery, e.g. if predicted time is before actual arrival and/or time of receipt [acceptance], then there is an impact to the expected delivery of the item, and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.).
Claims 8, 17: (previously presented)
Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown Kujat teaches the following:
…wherein the determining comprises: determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, that an out for delivery scan for the at least one item has occurred (Kujat, see citations noted supra including Fig. 9 and at least [20:21-22:34], e.g. scan data at check-point 912B, an expected check-point, is received); determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, whether an item delivery scan for the at least one item has occurred (Kujat, see citations noted supra including Fig. 9 and at least [20:21-22:34], e.g. scan data at destination 930/check-point 912D may not be received.); determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, whether the item delivery scan has occurred by a predetermined time (Kujat, see citations noted supra including Fig. 9 and at least [6:10-39] and [20:21-22:34], e.g. scan data at destination 930/check-point 912D may not be received as expected per “predicted performance”, a.k.a “predicted delivery performance” data).; and before confirming that the at least one item has the delivery routing issue determining, by at least one of the one or more processors, that the item delivery scan has not been made by the predetermined local time (Kujat, again see at the citations noted supra and again at least [20:21-22:35]. In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds that Kujat provides motivation to perform this step to enable his determination of “impact” [delivery issue] on the item delivery for various scenarios. Therefore, the Examiner finds it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare information retrieved from the “predicted delivery performance”, such as expected delivery time, with actual information which may be a lack of information regarding scanning the item at the “destination 930” [arrival/acceptance location] and/or the information regarding “an actual time for when the unit of the item was received [accepted] at the destination location associated with the consumer” to determine Kujat’s “impact” [delivery issue] on the item delivery, e.g. if predicted time for delivery has arrived and yet the system has not received delivery and/or receipt by customer information, then there is an impact to the expected delivery of the item, and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.).
Claim 21: (previously presented)
Although Lawson/Wilkinson teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, they may not explicitly teach the below nuance. However, regarding this feature, as shown Lawson in view of Kujat teaches the following:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate an internal case file associated with the delivery routing issue, wherein the internal case file comprises one or more of:
an image of the at least one item, a last known or scanned location of the at least one item based on last scan data, a theoretical or expected next location of the at least one item, contact information of an item coordinator in the last known or expected next location of the at least one item, a drop shipper's contact information for use when the item was not scanned as received at a facility but could have actually been received in the distribution network, a discrepancy between a facility where the at least one item was scanned and an expected facility according to a delivery plan, a distance between a delivered scan coordinate where the scan was made and actual destination including map and directions information, or an explanation provided for an item undeliverable as addressed. (Kujat, see at least Figs. 4, 8, 9, and [6:10-35], teaching: “…For example, the consumer may receive the notification with ‘a new description 216’ [automatically generated internal case file] of the predicted delivery performance 210….”; and per at least [14:50-65] and [20:21-22:35], such notification, may include a “…tool [to] visualize a predicted performance as predicted route 910…”, e.g. checkpoint 912C [a theoretical or expected next location of the at least one item], and “…the prediction service may determine a route deviation 960. Further, the tool may visualize an actual delivery route 940 and may compare the actual delivery route 940 to the predicted delivery route 910. A difference between the two routes may indicate the route deviation 960…”, etc…
PNG
media_image1.png
757
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Kujat which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lawson to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Kujat to the device/method of Lawson in order to perform the limitation in question because Lawson and Kujat are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawson, Wilkinson, Kujat, in view of Hilbush et al. (US 2015/0019455 A1; hereinafter, "Hilbush”).
Claim 23: (previously presented)
Although, as shown supra, Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat teache the limitations upon which these claims depend including notifying a consumer of an “impact” to delivery, e.g. as depicted per visualization tool of Kujat at Fig. 9, and teaches receiving information regarding tracking of an item both in terms of time and location of an item in route to an intended destination, they may not explicitly teach all of the nuances as recited below regarding upgrading a service class of the item for the purpose of expediting movement of the item toward an intended distribution facility. However, regarding these features, Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat in view of Hilbush teaches the following:
The system of Claim 1, wherein, to automatically change the delivery plan and control the item processing equipment, the one or more processors are configured to: automatically upgrade a service class of the at least one item to a higher class; and control, based on the upgraded higher class, the item processing equipment at the second distribution facility to expedite movement of the at least one item toward the intended distribution facility. (Hilbush, see at least [0059] and [0087], e.g.: “…another non-limiting example, a combination of carrier tracking data ( e.g., carrier data 401) and order data 404 may be received, wherein due to various factors the delivery point for package A must be changed from address D to address E. This may be due to environmental issues encountered with the package, that may require expedited delivery [higher class of service], or simply due to changing demands of a customer/recipient of the package…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Hilbush (directed towards techniques which provide for changing the service level of an item due perhaps to environmental issues encountered with the package, that may require expedited delivery [higher class of service] from address D to address E, etc…) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat (already directed towards tracking item location information and teaching that a customer may be informed via a notification of an “impact” to delivery based on discrepancies with actual item location/time and predicted delivery performance data due to environmental factors such as weather, traffic, etc…) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Hilbush to the device/method of Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat in order to automatically upgrade a service class of the at least one item to “expedited deliver” [a higher class]; and control, based on such “expedited delivery” [the upgraded higher class], item processing equipment at address “D” [a second distribution facility] to expedite movement of the at least one item toward the address “E” [intended distribution facility] with motivation to mitigate the “impact” on a customer (especially as such “impact” Kujat teaches he communicates to his customer) and because Lawson/Wilkinson/Kujat and Hilbush are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q 10/0838) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claims 9, 19-20, and 22 remain canceled. Applicant amended claims 11, 10, 18 on 01-29-2026. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 01-29-2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 USC 112(b), 35 USC 101, and 103 rejections with Lawson in view of Wilkinson teaching applicant’s amended and argued features.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights