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 Response filed 06/18/2026 and the Request for Continued Examination filed on 07/02/2026.
Claims 58-60, 63, 65-70, 73, and 76-77 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 58-77 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 58-77 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has removed all mentions of the “rating system algorithm” that lacked sufficient written description from the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 58-77 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 65 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has corrected the dependency of claim 65 to depend from claim 58 instead of the canceled claim 1. The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 65 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-19, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 58-77 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 58-77 have been maintained.
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 first argues across pages 10-11 that the removal of the “rating system algorithm” form the claims obviates the argument that the algorithm was a “black box”. Examiner agrees that the removal of the “rating system algorithm” removes this concern regarding the algorithm itself.
Next, Applicant argues across pages 11-14 that the amended claims allegedly do not recite an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One. First, Applicant argues across pages 11-13 that the claims allegedly do not recite a Mental Process.
Particularly, Applicant argues that the claimed “integrated, multi-step data processing pipeline” (Remarks Page 12) allegedly cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Applicant argues that the defined period of time may be, as an example, thirteen weeks of shipments, and that the volume and complexity allegedly precludes the claims from practically being performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, regarding the volume of the data, Applicant uses an example of thirteen weeks and potentially thousands of historical shipments. However, Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require such a volume of historical shipping data. In fact, Applicant’s specification explicitly states that the thirteen week example of historical shipping data is “non-limiting” on page 12 of the specification. Page two of the specification considers that there are “one or more” historical parcel shipments in the historical shipping data. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not require some vastly large number of shipping records as Applicant’s arguments seem to imply. The claimed process covers analysis of a few shipments, which makes Applicant’s implication that the claims require thousands of historical shipments to be unpersuasive.
Furthermore, the complexity argument by Applicant is also unpersuasive. Taking Applicant’s argued 4 step process from page 12 of Remarks, the broadest reasonable interpretation of recalculation of zoning assignments covers a user changing a zone based on a warehouse’s location on a map, something that can be done practically in the human mind. Neither the claims nor the specification page 14 indicate that the recalculation of zones of warehouse locations requires anything beyond what can be practically performed in the human mind. Indeed, Applicant’s specification page 9 even states that the PMO can enter/re-zone invoice data, further pointing towards the calculating of shipping zones to be a process capable of being performed in the human mind. The zone recalculation, retrieval and application of carrier-specific discount schedules, “dynamic integration” of the discount data with the recalculated zone assignments, and generating a predicted net rate that is substantially identical to the actual net rate the carrier would have provided, as a whole, covers the process of pricing out a hypothetical shipment based on zoning a hypothetical origin warehouse and destination and applying the zoning and package characteristics to a table of carrier-specific rates to arrive at a hypothetical cost for the shipment. At the level of detail in the claims, the process of determining a zone for a warehouse, reviewing a rate/discount table specific to a carrier, and then applying the determined zone to the rate/discount table to generate a predicted rate does not recite a process that goes beyond what is practicable to be performed in the human mind (i.e. viewing a judging a zone for a warehouse based on a map, looking up the zone in a table/database of a carrier’s rates, and performing some mathematical calculations to arrive at the hypothetical price). Examiner notes that “dynamic integration” is not defined in the specification, so the broadest reasonable interpretation of “dynamic integration” covers applying the determined zones to a rate/discount table of a carrier.
Regarding the iteration, Examiner notes that doing a process over again, while potentially time-consuming, does not make the process itself any more complex. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification page 15 explicitly states that the iteration is performed “until they achieve a level of discount and profit desired or believed necessary to win the prospective 3PL client's 140 business”. Therefore, Applicant’s disclosure explicitly states that the determination on how/whether to iterate the calculations at all is left up to the judgment of the human PMO user.
Regarding the “sufficient precision” to be “substantially identical” to what the actual rate would have been, Examiner notes that the claims do not provide any differentiation between calculations that result in “substantially identical” rates that would be outside the realm of mental processes. Indeed, Applicant’s specification page 14 states that the result of using the carrier’s rate/discount information, package characteristics, and zoning for the warehouse results in such identical/near identical rates. In other words, the rates calculated by applying the warehouse zoning and carrier discount data (which are a Mental Process as discussed above) result in a rate that is identical/near-identical to what the actual rate would have been. Applicant appears to be arguing that the “substantially identical” standard adds something into the process that requires more than mental processes, but from the claims in light of the specification the calculated rate “substantially identical” by virtue of the calculations being based on the warehouse zone and carrier rate-discount data.
In sum, while the process argued by Applicant requires determining a zone for a warehouse, retrieving and applying carrier-specific discount data to generate a predicted net rate based on the integration of the zoning and carrier-specific data, the steps of the method are steps that, as an ordered combination, can be performed using human judgement/observation (zoning warehouse, retrieving and applying carrier-specific data) and pen and paper (calculating the rate by integrating the zoning and carrier data). Thus claim 58, as a whole, recites a Mental Process.
Next, Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the claims do not recite a commercial interaction, arguing that the claims are directed to “specific technical process” (Page 13 Remarks) of generating predicted net rates through the process argued above regarding mental processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step (g) of claim 58 explicitly states “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 rates” which is the claimed process culminating in the output of an estimated savings figure of a potential client. The description of steps 425, 430, and 455 in Applicant’s specification all recite the determination of a discount rate with the goal of winning a potential customer’s business. The background of the specification also indicates that the invention is addressing the problem of 3PL invoices showing fees charged by 3PL and remedying the issue by presenting an invoice with a potential client’s savings over the published carrier rates. Accordingly, the claimed invention recites at least marketing/sales activities of showing potential clients their potential savings by shipping with the 3PL provider over shipping directly with the carrier. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II.B. explicitly states that “marketing or sales activities or behaviors” fall under commercial interactions. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments that the claim does not recite a commercial interaction/Certain Method of Organizing Human Behavior are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues on page 14 that the claims do not recite mathematical concepts. Applicant particularly argues that the removal of the rating system algorithm now precludes the claims from reciting Mathematical concepts. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the term “algorithm” has been removed from the claims, the claims still recite mathematical calculations of generating the predicted net rate in the process argued above. Accordingly, the claims still recite mathematical calculations, which per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) C., fall under mathematical concepts.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments at Step 2A Prong One are not persuasive. The claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant argues across pages 14-16 that the claimed invention integrates any judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two. First, Applicant argues on pages 14-15 that the claims are “directed to a specific implementation” and not a result. Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to Enfish and Finjan, in that they recite a particular implementation of a technological improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claimed invention goes beyond simply stating “generating a predicted net rate”, the detail that Applicant points to in the argument is detail that is further defining the judicial exception itself. It is here where the claimed invention is not analogous with Enfish and Finjan. In both of the cited examples of case law, the claims at issue were reciting particular implementation of an improvement to technology. Regarding the particular implementation of the calculation of a predicted rate of the claimed invention, the particular implementation is providing detail regarding the judicial exception itself (the calculation of the predicted shipping rate). Per MPEP 2106.04 I. “The 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) “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); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. Therefore, the claimed invention is not eligible by any similarity to Enfish or Finjan or by reciting a particular implementation of the abstract idea.
Next, Applicant argues across pages 15-16 that the claimed invention imposes meaningful limits on the abstract idea. First, Applicant argues that the PMO system and interface are allegedly not generic computer recitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites the PMO system as having at least one processor and a memory storing a database and program instructions coupled to the at least one processor. Furthermore, Page 9 of the specification recites “computing device 120 [on which the claimed method is performed] may be a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet device, a mobile phone or smartphone, a smartwatch, an application server, a cloud computing device, cloud server in a cloud computing environment, and/or any other suitable computing device”. As the PMO system under broadest reasonable interpretation may be “any suitable computing device”, the physical components of the PMO system are generic computer components.
Second, Applicant argues that the types of data being processed are constrained to “specific data structures of the parcel shipping industry”. Per MPEP 2106.04 I. cited above, the specific type of data being manipulated/process may narrow the abstract idea of the claims, but a narrower abstract idea and an abstract idea that is integrated into a practical application are not the same thing per the MPEP and the courts. Accordingly, the specific types of data being processed does not meaningfully limit the claim.
Third, Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not preempt all methods of determining discounted shipping rates or optimizing 3PL margins. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the claim is integrated into a practical application because the entirety of discounted shipping rate calculation is not preempted. MPEP 2106.04 I. states “The 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). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible)… While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B)”. Therefore, the lack of complete preemption of all methods of calculating discounted shipping dates does not make the claims patent eligible. As will be shown and discussed throughout the Office Action, the Alice/Mayo results in the claimed invention being ineligible.
Finally, Applicant argues across pages 17-18 that the claimed invention recites significantly more than a judicial exception at Step 2B. Applicant argues that the Office has not provided allegedly required Berkheimer evidence for the combination of elements, specifically the “combination of receiving historical parcel shipping data with specific package characteristics, determining and storing historical and 3PL discounted parcel shipping rates, receiving warehouse selection inputs, generating predicted net rates by dynamically integrating carrier discount data with recalculated shipping zone assignments for hypothetical warehouse locations to produce results substantially identical to actual carrier rates, determining client discounted rates within specific bounds, and generating estimated savings output”. Applicant argues that the finding of non-obviousness necessarily means that the combination was not well-understood routine and conventional and therefore must be patent eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are conflating analysis of the judicial exception and analysis of the additional elements. Specifically, the ordered combination of features argued by Applicant are part of the abstract idea itself, not additional elements. Therefore, while the claims were found to be non-obvious, the judicial exception itself is non-obvious, not the combination of additional elements.
The steps argued by Applicant all fall into the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, while Examiner agrees that Step 2B analysis is of the combination of additional elements, the Step 2B analysis consequently does not analyze the combination of features argued by Applicant because they are not additional elements. As will be shown again in the rejection below, the additional elements of claim 58 are: 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. These additional elements, as an ordered combination, amount to no more than applying/executing the claimed judicial exception on a generic computing device. Applicant’s specification explicitly considers that the computing device operating as the PMO system “may be a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet device, a mobile phone or smartphone, a smartwatch, an application server, a cloud computing device, cloud server in a cloud computing environment, and/or any other suitable computing device”. Therefore, the combination of additional elements performing the judicial exception is a generic computing device being used as a tool to perform the judicial exception. This analysis, originally performed at Step 2A Prong Two, is carried over to Step 2B pe MPEP 2106.05 II. “Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: • Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; • Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h)”.
Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “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). As discussed in the previous Office Action, additional elements that are deemed to be insignificant extra-solution activity need to be reconsidered and have Berkheimer evidence provided at Step 2B. However, as shown above, Examiner has not deemed any of the additional elements in the claimed invention to be insignificant extra-solution activity as all of the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, per the MPEP and the Alice/Mayo framework, the Prong Two conclusions are carried over to Step 2B, and the ordered combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged lack of necessary Berkheimer evidence at step 2B are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 18 that the features of claims 67 and 77 allegedly go beyond generic computer implementation, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued features of retrieving carrier discount data comprising negotiated discounts from a database; determining shipping zones based on selected optional warehouse locations and destinations associated with each historical parcel shipment; and computing predicted net rates by applying the carrier discount data to published shipping charges corresponding to the determined shipping zones and specific package characteristics all amount to data processing. Retrieving data from a database is a generic computer function, determining shipping zones based on warehouse locations and destination locations involves comparing data (addresses, etc.) which is a generic computing function, and the computation of predicted net rates is mathematical calculation that is a generic computing function. The specific types of data being retrieved, compared, and calculated are not indicated in the claims or specification as being beyond the capabilities of a generic computer. Indeed, Applicant’s own disclosure describes the computing device performing the claimed functions as covering “any other suitable computing device” as discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments that the claims recites features that go beyond the capabilities of a generic computer are not persuasive.
Applicant’s conclusion on pages 18-19 summarize Applicant’s previous arguments, which are unpersuasive for the reasoning discussed above. Claims 58-77 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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. generating a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment based on processing 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 predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment is generated 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. generating a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment based on processing 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 predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment is generated 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. generating a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment based on processing 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 predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment is generated 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 calculating 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. generate a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment based on processing 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 predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment is generated 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. generate a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment based on processing 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 predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment is generated 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. generate a predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment based on processing 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 predicted net rate for each historical parcel shipment is generated 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 calculating 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. Kreuz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,301,801) teaches searching accounts across multiple third party carriers to find a set of prices for a shipment based on weight, physical dimensions, and location zone. However, Kreuz teaches the obtaining of a set of prices from the perspective of a client in the claimed invention and does not teach the determination of prices offered by the third-party logistics services from the perspective of the third-party logistics company.
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
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 3626
Prosecution Insights