DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 02/24/2026.
Claims 52-57 have been canceled.
Claims 58-77 have been entered.
Claims 58-77 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 54 and 56-57 have been fully considered and are persuasive. While the objections to claims 54 and 56-57 are moot in light of the claims’ cancellation, newly added claims 58-77 do not recite the limitations at issue in now canceled claims 54 and 56-57.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the Alice/Mayo 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 52-57 and to the eligibility of newly added claims 58-77 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While the Alice/Mayo 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 52-57 are moot in light of the claims’ cancellation, newly added claims 58-77 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that the new claims 58-77 are allegedly not directed to an abstract idea, would integrate any abstract idea into a practical application, and amount to significantly more than any judicial exception. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant particularly points to the “rating system algorithm” that performs the allegedly technical operations of “processes specific package characteristics from historical parcel shipping data together with selected optional warehouse locations and carrier discount data from a database; dynamically integrates carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments based on selected optional warehouse locations; and generates a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment that is substantially identical to the net rate that shipping carriers would have provided had each respective historical parcel shipment been shipped from the selected optional warehouse locations at the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates” on pages 9-10. Applicant argues that the “complex processing” is beyond practical human mental capability and thus should not fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.B. recites “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea”. While Applicant alleges that the rating system algorithm is performing “complex computational processing”, the algorithm in the claims does not recite detail as to how the algorithm takes the specific package characteristics, carrier discount data, and updated shipping zones based on an optional warehouse selection and processes the data to arrive at the predicted net rates. Turning to the specification, the specification also does not provide particulars as to how the rating system arrives at the net rates, even in the portions of the specification cited by Applicant on page 11 of Remarks. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the rating system algorithm would cover the performance of operations on these inputs that would be able to be performed at least by a human using pen and paper (for example, the multiplication of a weight and volume value, further multiplied by coefficients based on the carrier discount and the shipping zones from which the package would have been sent and received). Neither the claims nor specification indicate that the algorithm is complex to the extent that embodiments that could be performed using pen and paper are precluded. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not fall into the Mental Process Grouping are not persuasive.
While not argued by Applicant, Examiner also notes here that for similar reasoning to that discussed above, the rating system algorithm also falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping by reciting mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C.). Examiner notes that the rating algorithm was not present in previous claim sets and is newly introduced in the present amendment.
Applicant further argues on Page 10 of Remarks that the claims do not recite a commercial interaction but are focused on “the technical process of rate prediction”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the functions of the algorithm Applicant is arguing is not described in the claims. Instead, the inputs are described are being “processed” and “dynamically integrated” to generate the output of a predicted net rate. Rather than being focused on how this prediction is actually made based on the inputs, the algorithm is recited broadly, and itself falls into the Mental Process and Mathematical Concepts groupings as discussed above. Furthermore, even if the algorithm were to be considered a technical component, at least step g. of the claims of outputting an estimated savings of the potential or current 3PL client would still recite the commercial interaction of presenting potential prospective/actual savings to potential/actual clients to gain/retain that client’s business. The claimed process overall at least falls into sales activities or behaviors and business relations, which are enumerated examples or the “Commercial Interactions” of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity subgrouping of judicial exceptions in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.B. Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite commercial interactions, or any other judicial exception at Step 2A Prong One, are not persuasive.
Applicant then argues on pages 10-12 that the claims integrate their judicial exceptions into a practical application. Applicant argues that rating algorithm system represents a technical improvement on pages 10-11 and argues against the categorization of the computer components into the “apply it” framework on pages 11-12. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the alleged technical improvement, Applicant argues that conventional carrier rating engines are not capable of performing the functions of the claimed algorithm because of the “technical limitation” of lacking access to the carrier discount data and being unable to recalculate shipping zone assignments. Applicant argues that the specification supports this alleged technical improvement before citing to the description of step 445 on Page 11 of Remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the improvement does not need to be explicitly set forth in the specification, the improvement still needs to be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification. However, even in the cited portions of the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized a technical improvement in the form of a rating algorithm. First, even if the algorithm or types of data used in the algorithm were to be recognized as an improvement, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the improvement to the algorithm (abstract idea) itself and not a technical improvement. Considering additional data types and different data manipulation approaches may result in more accurate predictions, but improving an algorithm itself is an improvement to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”. Additionally, neither the claims nor the specification make it apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that an improvement is made to algorithm. Even in the specification portions cited by Applicant, “a highly accurate rating system” “is created” that produces “a net rate that is identical/near identical to the net rate the carrier would have provided”, but no detail is provided regarding how the recited data inputs are manipulated in an algorithm to achieve such accuracy. The specification merely recites that the rating system takes in the recited inputs and outputs a “highly accurate” predicted net rate. One of ordinary skill in the art would not find it apparent that there is an improvement in the algorithm to increase accuracy when details regarding the functioning of the algorithm are left as a black box in the specification. Regarding the accessing/considering new types of data, nowhere in Applicant’s specification are conventional ratings engines/algorithms and any technical challenges faced by conventional algorithms mentioned. Instead, Applicant’s specification recites “This results in an invoice that openly shows the fees charged by the 3PL and the shipping rate charged to the 3PL by the carrier. This may cause a problem as some customers may complain at the fee charged by the 3PL versus what the 3PL is being charged by the carrier. For example, large clients may push back at the 3PL's fees and demand that they not be charged any markup over that which the carrier is charging the 3PL. Accordingly, new approaches are needed with respect to optimizing the 3PL company's parcel shipping margins” (Page 1 line 26 thru Page 2 line 1 of Applicant’s specification as filed). Nowhere in Applicant’s specification are data access restrictions or poor conventional algorithm accuracy alluded to. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the challenges being targeted in the claimed invention were directed towards improving the commercial interaction of providing potential/current customers with 3PL pricing in a manner that optimized profits and emphasized consumer savings. For the reasons above, the claims and disclosure do not indicate technical problems with conventional rating algorithms and do not make apparent that the clamed algorithm contains any specific improvements. Even if the disclosure provided such support, an improvement to the algorithm would be an improvement to the abstract idea and would not be technical improvement. Applicant’s argument that the rating algorithm provides an improvement to technology are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that the computer components do not fall into the “apply it” rationale are similarly unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the computer assists in improving technology by aiding the method execute the algorithm, which has a level of precision that requires computational processing, and by allowing access to discount rates and providing the ability to recalculate shipping zone assignments. Applicant also argues that the claims recite a specific technical process for achieving the result of the invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, the claims and the specification provide recite no details regarding how the algorithm processes its inputs and “dynamically integrates” discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the algorithm covers abstract operations that could be performed by a human using pen and paper, mathematical calculations, and are part of the commercial interaction. Therefore, the algorithm itself falls under the judicial exception, and the computer is merely being used to perform the abstract calculations/data manipulation instead of a human. Even assuming that the algorithm is an improved algorithm, the computing components are not aiding the method technically. Instead, the aiding of the algorithm by the computing components is in the form of increased speed that comes solely from the capabilities of a general purpose computer. MPEP 2106.05(a) I. states that this type of aid does not reflect a technical improvement (“Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:… ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding the accessing and use of carrier discount data, the computing components in the claimed invention (at least one processors, at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory, PMO system and user interface) are not described in the claims or specification as overcoming some technical hurdle that would prevent conventional system from accessing such information. Instead, the access, or lack thereof, to such data appears to be a commercial/business issue (i.e. whether the operator of the computer has the right to access such data). The re-zoning based on a warehouse selection is also not described in such a way in the claims or spec that indicate a technical hurdle is presented to conventional systems. Indeed, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification appears to cover re-zoning that would not require a computer at all, such as switching from a warehouse located in a first zone to a warehouse located in a second zone and changing a coefficient or variable in the calculation based on whether the warehouse is in a first zone or second zone. Finally, as discussed above, the claims and specification do not indicate a particular level of complexity that would necessarily require computational processing power, even less so the need for processing capabilities beyond those afforded by generic computing components.
Regarding the “specific technical process”, Examiner notes that the first three argued bullet points “- Receiving historical parcel shipping data comprising shipment records including specific package characteristics; - Determining and storing historical parcel shipping rates and 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates; - Receiving a warehouse selection input identifying warehouse locations” amount to receiving or collecting, manipulating, and storing data. Other than “via the PMO user interface”, there is no specific technical process claimed for how such information is collected/received/manipulated/stored. Only the contents of the data being collected are described. Regarding the last three bullet points (“- Executing a rating system algorithm that processes specific package characteristics together with warehouse locations and carrier discount data; - The rating system algorithm dynamically integrating carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments; and - Generating predicted net rates that are substantially identical to actual carrier rates”), as discussed above the claims and specification treat the rating system algorithm as a black box in which the collected data are input and a net rate that is substantially identical to actual carrier rates comes out. Even Applicant’s citations argued previously regarding step 445 do not provide detail as to how the various inputs are processed and integrated. The specification merely says that they are, and the result is the predicted net rate.
Regardless, even if the algorithm were to be specifically recited in the claims, MPEP 2106.04 I. recites “The [Supreme] Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation)” and MPEP 2106.05(f) recites “Requiring more than mere instructions to apply an exception does not mean that the claim must be narrow in order to be eligible. The courts have identified some broad claims as eligible see, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d. 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and some narrow claims as ineligible see e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is reciting an abstract idea that is performed by the generic computing components and reciting a desired outcome (net predicted rate, discounted rate for a potential/current customer). The steps recited in the claim and argued by Applicant are not a specific technical process/solution to a technical problem. Applicant’s arguments that the claims provide a technical improvement and are eligible at Step 2A Prong Two are not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claims being non-obvious over the cited prior art represents an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant argues that the rating system’s algorithm was not well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the claims satisfy Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, the algorithm itself falls under the judicial exception, and the additional elements of the computing components in the claimed invention are no more than mere instructions to apply the claim’s judicial exception using generic computing components In Step 2A Prong Two and MPEP 2016.05(f). Per MPEP 2106.05 II., conclusions from 2016.05(f) are carried over to Step 2B. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (emphasis added). Well-understood, routine, and conventional evidence is required at Step 2B for additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity at Prong Two, but none of the additional elements in the present claims are classified as such. Regarding the non-obviousness of the claims, MPEP 2106.04 I. recites “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions”, and MPEP 2106.05 I. recites, “As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original)”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea at Step 2B are not persuasive.
Claims 58-77 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 58-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding new claim 58, the claim recites “e. executing, by the at least one processor, a rating system algorithm that processes the specific package characteristics from the historical parcel shipping data together with the one or more selected optional warehouse locations and carrier discount data from the database, wherein the rating system algorithm generates a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment by dynamically integrating the carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments based on the one or more selected optional warehouse locations, wherein the generated predicted net rate is substantially identical to a net rate that the one or more shipping carriers would have provided had each respective historical parcel shipment been shipped from the one or more selected optional warehouse locations at the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates”. While the claim recites what data is input into the rating system algorithm (specific package characteristics, one or more selected optional warehouse locations, carrier discount data, recalculated shipping zone assignments) and what is output from the algorithm (a predicted net rate that is substantially identical to a net rate that the one or more carriers would have provided), and these inputs and outputs are supported in the originally filed specification pages 13-14, how the algorithm processes the recited inputs to arrive at the recited outputs is not described in the original specification. The rating system is mentioned in the description regarding step 445 on page 14, but no particular algorithm is recited. Instead, pages 13-14 of the specification merely state what information is taken in by the rating system and what information comes out. One of ordinary skill in the art would not, upon reading the specification, be reasonably apprised of the fact that the applicant, inventor, or joint inventor was in possession of the invention at the time of filing, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how Applicant is taking the recited input information like specific package characteristics and arriving at the predicted net rate that is substantially identical to what the carrier would have offered as a net rate. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that Applicant had possession of a rating system algorithm to manipulate the package/shipping data to arrive at the predicted net rate.
Furthermore, the broad genus of a rating system algorithm is claimed in new claim 58. Applicant has not pointed to sufficient species (or even one particular algorithm) of a rating system taking specific package characteristics, one or more selected optional warehouse locations, carrier discount data, and recalculated shipping zone assignments to arrive at a predicted net rate to show that Applicant is in possession of the entire genus of rating system algorithms to predict net rates. Specifically, while step 445 in the description page 14 states that the rating system takes in the recited input information of the claim and outputs the recited output, no particular algorithm is recited which performs this transformation. When an applicant directs claims to a genus, an applicant must sufficiently show possession of the claimed genus by description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Here, Applicant has not given any description of even one species of the rating system algorithm which may, in combination with the aforementioned package/shipping zone data, may be used to output the predicted net rates. Thus, Applicant has not shown possession of the genus of algorithms to generate predicted net rates.
Regarding independent claim 68, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for similar reasoning as discussed above regarding claim 58. Dependent claims 59-67 and 69-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependence on independent claims 58 and 68, respectively.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, Claim 65 recites “The method of claim 1…”. Claim 1 was previously canceled by Applicant in a previous response. Per MPEP 608.01(n) V., “If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner suggests amending claim 65 to depend from method claim 58, as it appears was the intention of Applicant.
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 58-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining a discounted shipping rate to offer a customer in order to try to win business.
As an initial matter, claims 58-67 fall into at least the “process” category of statutory subject matter. Claims 68-77 fall into at least the “machine” category of statutory subject matter. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 58, the limitation of “A computer-implemented method for generating optimized discounted parcel shipping rates using a parcel margin optimization (PMO) system comprising at least one processor coupled to at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a database, the method comprising: a. receiving, via a PMO user interface executing on the at least one processor, historical parcel shipping data of a potential or current third-party logistics (3PL) client of a 3PL service provider, the historical parcel shipping data comprising shipment records over a defined period of time including specific package characteristics for each historical parcel shipment”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the method being “computer-implemented”, “a parcel margin optimization (PMO) system comprising at least one processor coupled to at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a database”, and “a PMO user interface,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “b. determining, by the at least one processor, historical parcel shipping rates for the historical parcel shipments charged to the potential or current 3PL client by one or more shipping carriers based on the received historical parcel shipping data, and storing the determined historical parcel shipping rates in the database; c. receiving, via the PMO user interface, parcel shipping cost data of the 3PL service provider, and in response thereto, determining and storing in the database 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates, wherein the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates are parcel shipping rates charged to the 3PL service provider by the one or more shipping carriers for a same or comparable shipping service as that of the historical parcel shipments; d. receiving, via the PMO user interface, a warehouse selection input identifying one or more optional warehouse locations from which the potential or current 3PL client's products may be shipped; e. executing, by the at least one processor, a rating system algorithm that processes the specific package characteristics from the historical parcel shipping data together with the one or more selected optional warehouse locations and carrier discount data from the database, wherein the rating system algorithm generates a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment by dynamically integrating the carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments based on the one or more selected optional warehouse locations, wherein the generated predicted net rate is substantially identical to a net rate that the one or more shipping carriers would have provided had each respective historical parcel shipment been shipped from the one or more selected optional warehouse locations at the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates; f. determining, by the at least one processor, potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates based on the determined historical parcel shipping rates and the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates, wherein the potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates are less than the determined historical parcel shipping rates and greater than or equal to the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates; and g. generating, by the at least one processor, output data comprising estimated savings for the potential or current 3PL client based on the generated predicted net rates and the determined potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rate”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 58 also recites the concept of determining a discounted shipping rate to offer a customer in order to try to win business which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method for generating optimized discounted parcel shipping rates, the method comprising: a. receiving historical parcel shipping data of a potential or current third-party logistics (3PL) client of a 3PL service provider, the historical parcel shipping data comprising shipment records over a defined period of time including specific package characteristics for each historical parcel shipment; b. determining historical parcel shipping rates for the historical parcel shipments charged to the potential or current 3PL client by one or more shipping carriers based on the received historical parcel shipping data, and storing the determined historical parcel shipping rates; c. receiving parcel shipping cost data of the 3PL service provider, and in response thereto, determining and storing 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates, wherein the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates are parcel shipping rates charged to the 3PL service provider by the one or more shipping carriers for a same or comparable shipping service as that of the historical parcel shipments; d. receiving a warehouse selection input identifying one or more optional warehouse locations from which the potential or current 3PL client's products may be shipped; e. executing a rating system algorithm that processes the specific package characteristics from the historical parcel shipping data together with the one or more selected optional warehouse locations and carrier discount data, wherein the rating system algorithm generates a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment by dynamically integrating the carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments based on the one or more selected optional warehouse locations, wherein the generated predicted net rate is substantially identical to a net rate that the one or more shipping carriers would have provided had each respective historical parcel shipment been shipped from the one or more selected optional warehouse locations at the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates; f. determining potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates based on the determined historical parcel shipping rates and the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates, wherein the potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates are less than the determined historical parcel shipping rates and greater than or equal to the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates; and g. generating output data comprising estimated savings for the potential or current 3PL client based on the generated predicted net rates and the determined potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Further still, claim 58 recites Mathematical Concepts in the form of mathematical calculations. Particularly, the limitations of e. executing a rating system algorithm that processes the specific package characteristics from the historical parcel shipping data together with the one or more selected optional warehouse locations and carrier discount data, wherein the rating system algorithm generates a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment by dynamically integrating the carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments based on the one or more selected optional warehouse locations, wherein the generated predicted net rate is substantially identical to a net rate that the one or more shipping carriers would have provided had each respective historical parcel shipment been shipped from the one or more selected optional warehouse locations at the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates recites mathematical calculations in the form of an algorithm to calculate a predicted net shipping rate. Claim 58 further recites Mathematical Concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the method being “computer-implemented”; a PMO system; at least one processor coupled to at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a database; and a PMO user interface. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the method being “computer-implemented”; a PMO system; at least one processor coupled to at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a database; and a PMO user interface amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 59-65 further limit the abstract idea of claim 58 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 58 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 66 further limits the abstract idea of claim 58 while introducing the additional element of a client-accessible dashboard. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a client-accessible dashboard is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional element from claim 58 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 67 further limits the abstract idea of claim 58 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 58 above this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 68, the limitation of “A parcel margin optimization (PMO) system for generating optimized discounted parcel shipping rates, the system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing a database and program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: a. receive, via a PMO user interface, historical parcel shipping data of a potential or current third-party logistics (3PL) client of a 3PL service provider, the historical parcel shipping data comprising shipment records over a defined period of time including specific package characteristics for each historical parcel shipment”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A parcel margin optimization (PMO) system”, “at least one processor”, “at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing a database and program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to”, and “a PMO user interface” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “b. determine historical parcel shipping rates for the historical parcel shipments charged to the potential or current 3PL client by one or more shipping carriers based on the received historical parcel shipping data, and store the determined historical parcel shipping rates in the database; c. receive, via the PMO user interface, parcel shipping cost data of the 3PL service provider, and in response thereto, determine and store in the database 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates, wherein the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates are parcel shipping rates charged to the 3PL service provider by the one or more shipping carriers for a same or comparable shipping service as that of the historical parcel shipments; d. receive, via the PMO user interface, a warehouse selection input identifying one or more optional warehouse locations from which the potential or current 3PL client's products may be shipped; e. execute a rating system algorithm that processes the specific package characteristics from the historical parcel shipping data together with the one or more selected optional warehouse locations and carrier discount data from the database, wherein the rating system algorithm generates a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment by dynamically integrating the carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments based on the one or more selected optional warehouse locations, wherein the generated predicted net rate is substantially identical to a net rate that the one or more shipping carriers would have provided had each respective historical parcel shipment been shipped from the one or more selected optional warehouse locations at the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates; f. determine potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates based on the determined historical parcel shipping rates and the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates, wherein the potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates are less than the determined historical parcel shipping rates and greater than or equal to the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates; and g. generate output data comprising estimated savings for the potential or current 3PL client based on the generated predicted net rates and the determined potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 68 also recites the concept of determining a discounted shipping rate to offer a customer in order to try to win business which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Generating optimized discounted parcel shipping rates, comprising: a. receive historical parcel shipping data of a potential or current third-party logistics (3PL) client of a 3PL service provider, the historical parcel shipping data comprising shipment records over a defined period of time including specific package characteristics for each historical parcel shipment; b. determine historical parcel shipping rates for the historical parcel shipments charged to the potential or current 3PL client by one or more shipping carriers based on the received historical parcel shipping data, and store the determined historical parcel shipping rates; c. receive parcel shipping cost data of the 3PL service provider, and in response thereto, determine and store 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates, wherein the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates are parcel shipping rates charged to the 3PL service provider by the one or more shipping carriers for a same or comparable shipping service as that of the historical parcel shipments; d. receive a warehouse selection input identifying one or more optional warehouse locations from which the potential or current 3PL client's products may be shipped; e. execute a rating system algorithm that processes the specific package characteristics from the historical parcel shipping data together with the one or more selected optional warehouse locations and carrier discount data, wherein the rating system algorithm generates a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment by dynamically integrating the carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments based on the one or more selected optional warehouse locations, wherein the generated predicted net rate is substantially identical to a net rate that the one or more shipping carriers would have provided had each respective historical parcel shipment been shipped from the one or more selected optional warehouse locations at the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates; f. determine potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates based on the determined historical parcel shipping rates and the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates, wherein the potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates are less than the determined historical parcel shipping rates and greater than or equal to the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates; and g. generate output data comprising estimated savings for the potential or current 3PL client based on the generated predicted net rates and the determined potential or current 3PL client discounted parcel shipping rates all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Further still, claim 68 recites Mathematical Concepts in the form of mathematical calculations. Particularly, the limitations of e. execute a rating system algorithm that processes the specific package characteristics from the historical parcel shipping data together with the one or more selected optional warehouse locations and carrier discount data, wherein the rating system algorithm generates a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment by dynamically integrating the carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments based on the one or more selected optional warehouse locations, wherein the generated predicted net rate is substantially identical to a net rate that the one or more shipping carriers would have provided had each respective historical parcel shipment been shipped from the one or more selected optional warehouse locations at the 3PL service provider discounted parcel shipping rates recites mathematical calculations in the form of an algorithm to calculate a predicted net shipping rate. Claim 68 further recites Mathematical Concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a parcel margin optimization (PMO) system; at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing a database and program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to; and a PMO user interface. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a parcel margin optimization (PMO) system; at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing a database and program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to; and a PMO user interface amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 69-75 further limit the abstract idea of claim 68 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 68 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 76 further limits the abstract idea of claim 68 while introducing the additional element of a client-accessible dashboard. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a client-accessible dashboard is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional element from claim 68 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 77 further limits the abstract idea of claim 68 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 68 above this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious
Regarding claim 58, the claim is non-obvious over the prior art of record for similar reasoning as the now-cancelled claim 52 was non-obvious. Namely, the combination of Bennett et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0286894, hereafter known as Bennett) in view of Begen (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0258181, hereafter known as Begen), Chau et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0095806, hereafter known as Chau), and Natarajan et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0118074, hereafter known as Natarajan) teaches the majority of limitations of claim 58 individually (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection of now-cancelled claim 1 in the 12/05/2023 Final Rejection and pages 17-18 of the 06/21/2024 Non-Final Rejection). Natarajan further teaches carrier zones in carrier rate tables based on the location from where the item is shipped from in [0054]-[0055]. Nemati et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0314999, hereafter known as Nemati) teaches an algorithm evaluating the cost of shipping item from candidate warehouses. However, while the combination of Bennett, Begen, Chau, Natarajan and Nemati teaches the limitations of claim 58 individually, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bennett, Begen, Chau, Natarajan and Nemati in such a manner as to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention.
As discussed on pages 18-19 of the 11/24/2025 Non-Final Rejection and above, other prior art of record does not remedy the deficiencies of Bennett, Begen, Chau, Natarajan, and Nemati. Further prior art of record that fails to remedy these deficiencies includes:
Wagner et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0061376) teaches a system for optimizing freight rates based on parcel characteristics and rules for different carriers. However, Wagner does not explicitly teach optimizing the freight rates for 3rd party logistics. Ynion, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0034788) teaches receiving a selection of a warehouse and container depot and requesting quotations based on the container depot selection. However, Ynion, Jr. does not explicitly teach third-party logistics determining an optimal price for a shipment.
Accordingly, claim 58 is non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding independent claim 68, the claim is non-obvious over the prior art of record for similar reasoning as discussed above regarding claim 58.
Dependent claims 59-67 are non-obvious over the prior art of record by virtue of their dependence on non-obvious claim 58. Dependent claims 69-77 are non-obvious over the prior art of record by virtue of its dependence on non-obvious claim 68.
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).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571) 270-3445. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights