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 communications filed on 07/27/2026.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 15-17 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 07/27/2026, have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 11-18 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 10 of this final office action.
On page 12 of the Response, the Applicant argues “independent claims 1, 9, and 17, as amended, do not recite any method of organizing human activity, mental process, or other judicial exception […] the claims as amended recite steps that cannot practically be performed in the human mind […] amended claim 1 now recites “causing, by the computing device and based on the modification to the first shipment metadata, the first shipment to continue shipment, while the first shipment is in transit, via the at least one route hub […] This step recites a psychical, real-world action of causing – via metadata modification – the continued shipment of a physical package along a new route while the shipment is in transit […] the claim involves a tangible, physical object to be physical transported”.
The Examiner agrees that this particular claim limitation does not recite concepts of mental processes, but respectfully disagrees that the amended claim feature does not recite a judicial exception. In particular, the independent claim limitations, as a whole, which are directed towards collecting shipment information/metadata, determining on-time predictions for each of the shipments, and causing a shipment to continue shipment, while a first shipment is in transit, via a route hub associated with a second route identifier based on a modification to shipment metadata recite concepts of commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Applicant’s specification does not disclose further technical detail regarding the claim step of “caus[ing]” the shipment “to continue shipment” beyond, at most, disclosing “caus[ing] the first shipment to be shipped along the second route, which may be associated with less delays or transit issues” (¶ [0059]) and indicating a “level of service may comprise […] (e.g., express service vs. standard service, air service/airplane transit vs. ground service/truck transit, etc.)” (¶ [0021]). The claimed “computing device”, as recited in claim 1, merely serves as a generic computer tool for “causing” the shipment to continue, and the claim does not provide any further technical detail regarding how this function is executed. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the claimed steps directed towards “caus[ing] […] the first shipment to continue shipment, while the first shipment is in transit” recite certain methods of organizing human activity. That is, these amended claim limitations encompass providing instructions to delivery drivers/pilots to execute a commercial interaction (i.e., performing the delivery of commercial shipments along identified routes in accordance with shipment metadata).
On page 12 of the Response, the Applicant argues the following:
“Second, even the analytical steps of the claim, when considered as a whole and in the context of the full claim, are not practically performable in the human mind. As one example, the claim requires predictions to be made in the context of on-time delivery, meaning they must be determined quickly enough to be actionable”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the “analytical steps of the claim” are not practically performable in the human mind. As currently drafted, claim 1 recites “determining […] an on-time delivery prediction for each of the plurality of existing shipments at each of the plurality of route hubs […]”. A “plurality” of shipments, under broadest reasonable interpretation, could be any number of shipments that are more than one shipment – such as two shipments. A human using mental steps is capable of analyzing information associated with two items and making a determination based on the analysis. Furthermore, although the claim requires these predictions to be made in the context of on-time delivery, the claim does not suggest or require that the determinations be made within a defined interval of time that could not be practically performed by a human using mental steps with the aid of pen and paper.
On page 13 of the Response, the Applicant argues the “amended language makes clear that the method operates on a physical shipment that is already in transit, and the computing device causes that shipment to continue along a different physical route […] this is a tangible, real-world outcome that imposes meaningful limits on any allegedly-recited judicial exception. The claim”. Furthermore, on page 13 of the Response, the Applicant argues “amended claim 1 does not recite issuing any instruction to a person; it affirmatively requires “the first shipment to continue shipment, while the first shipment is in transit, via the at least one route hub […] That is, amended claim 1 recites the actual physical continuation of the package as a real-world result”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed further above, Applicant’s specification does not disclose any further technical detail regarding the claim steps of “caus[ing]” the shipment “to continue shipment” beyond, at most, disclosing “caus[ing] the first shipment to be shipped along the second route, which may be associated with less delays or transit issues” (¶ [0059]) and indicating a “level of service may comprise […] (e.g., express service vs. standard service, air service/airplane transit vs. ground service/truck transit, etc.)” (¶ [0021]). The claimed “computing device” merely serves as a generic computer tool for “causing” the shipment to continue, and the claim does not provide any further technical detail regarding how this function is executed. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the claimed steps directed towards “caus[ing] […] the first shipment to continue shipment, while the first shipment is in transit” recite methods of organizing human activity. That is, these amended claim limitations encompass providing instructions to delivery drivers/pilots to execute a commercial interaction (i.e., performing the delivery of commercial shipments along identified routes in accordance with shipment metadata).
Although the Applicant argues that “claim 1 does not recite issuing any instruction to a person”, neither the specification nor the claim provide any indication that the shipment/delivery is caused to be performed autonomously. Because neither the specification or claims indicate that the steps for “causing” the shipment to continue via a route hub encompass instructing an autonomous vehicle, or exclude the possibility that these steps encompass instructing a human, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, causing a shipment to continue along a route hub would encompass providing instructions to a human delivery driver/pilot to perform the claimed limitations.
On page 14 of the Response, the Applicant argues the following:
“When the additional elements are considered as an ordered combination – storing shipment metadata in a database, determining a second route based on relative risk at each hub, modifying that metadata to associate the shipment with a new route, and causing the in-transit shipment to continue along the new route instead of the excluded hub – they represent more than mere electronic recordkeeping. The database modification is not an end in itself; it is the mechanism by which the physical rerouting of the shipment is achieved. This ordered combination confines the claims to a particular useful application rather than a drafting effort designed to monopolize all uses of survival models or delivery predictions”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the identified claim elements, when considered as an ordered combination, implement the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim features directed towards storing shipment metadata in a database and modifying shipment metadata to be associated with a second route identifier instead of a first route identifier are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. The amended independent claim features further recite “causing […] based on the modification to the first shipment metadata, the first shipment to continue shipment, while the first shipment is in transit, via the at least one route hub associated with the second route identifier instead of the at least one further route hub”. As discussed further above, these amended claim features are considered to recite concepts of commercial interactions. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the claim steps for storing information in a database, modifying the information in the database, and causing a shipment to continue based on the modified information does not reflect a technical improvement to a technical field or functioning of a computer such as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These claim elements provide, at most, generic instructions for electronic recordkeeping recited at a high level of generality, and subsequent generic computer tools/instructions for “causing” a first shipment to continue shipment without any further technical detail delineating the technical process of “causing” the shipment to continue shipment. Thus, these claim features, when considered as an ordered combination and under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely amount to generic computer instructions to perform electronic recordkeeping (i.e., storing and modifying metadata in a database) and subsequently instructing (i.e. “causing”) a human driver/pilot to execute the transportation of a shipment according to the stored information. The Examiner notes “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” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
On page 14 of the Response, the Applicant further argues the amended independent claims integrate any exception by improving the logistics routing technology and “the disclosed system uses higher resolution data (e.g., more granular) and can determine an average estimated delivery time, and thus a prediction, for a standard level of service in a manner that existing systems did not […] the improvement is to the operation of the routing and logistics system itself, with finer-grained, hub-level risk detection driving automated physical rerouting of an in-transit package”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that these claim features reflect an improvement to technology. The claim steps directed towards collecting information and analyzing information, as currently drafted, are considered to recite concepts of mental processes. These claim features, at best, reflect an improvement to the process of performing the abstract idea itself. Examiner notes that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself […] is not an improvement in technology” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Furthermore, the Examiner notes “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Furthermore, as discussed further above, the claim limitations directed towards “automated physical rerouting of an in-transit package”, as currently drafted, are considered to recite methods of organizing human activity. Merely utilizing a “computing device”, as recited in amended claim 1, to generally cause a shipment to continue along a particular route hub does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the computer. Here, the computing device is merely being utilized in its ordinary capacity to execute the abstract idea. Examiner notes “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” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
On page 15 of the Response, the Applicant argues the “eligibility of claim 1 is further confirmed by analogy to […] Example 25 (Rubber Manufacturing, modeled on Diamond v. Diehr) […] Claim 1 is directly analogous: it uses the survival-model confidence outputs to carry out a physical operation of causing the in-transit shipment to continue via the selected route hub instead of the excluded hub, thereby imposing a meaningful limitation that integrates nay exception into a practical application”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended independent claims recite patent eligible subject matter that is analogous to Example 25. In Example 25, the eligible claims 1-2, viewed as a whole, involve steps for controlling the physical operation of machinery based on a mathematical analysis. Claim 1 of the Applicant’s claimed invention, however, merely recites high level steps for “caus[ing], by the computing device and based on the modification to the first shipment metadata, the first shipment to continue shipment, while the first shipment is in transit…”. There is nothing in the claim or specification that suggest any type or form of machinery is being controlled by the computing device to “continue shipment”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, these claim limitations encompass providing instructions, by a computing device, to a human delivery driver/pilot to perform a delivery- which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions.
On pages 15-16 of the Response, the Applicant argues the following:
“When the additional elements of amended claim 1 are considered as an ordered combination, they represent more than mere electronic recordkeeping. As mentioned, the database modification is not an end in itself; it is the mechanism by which the physical rerouting of the shipment is achieved. The amended “causing” step is a genuine additional element, involving the physical redirection of an in-transit package, and the ordered combination of risk-based route determination, metadata modification, and in-transit physical continuation via the selected hub applied significantly more than the generic data-gathering and recordkeeping […]”
“[…] the eligibility of claim 1 rests on the physical rerouting of the in-transit shipment, rather than on the survival-model computation or accuracy of the on-time delivery prediction itself, such that claim 1 does not run afoul of the principle that an improvement in the abstract idea alone is insufficient”.
As discussed further above in greater detail, the “causing” steps of the amended independent claims, as currently drafted, are considered to be part of the abstract idea itself. Under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, these claim limitations encompass providing instructions to a human delivery driver/pilot to perform a delivery- which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. Exemplary claim 1 introduces a “computing device” as a generic computer tool to perform a generic function of “caus[ing]” a shipment to continue without any further technical detail explaining what the “caus[ing]” technically encompasses. The specification does not provide any further clarification for this claim limitation. Therefore, the “computing device” merely serves as a generic computer tool being utilized in its ordinary capacity (i.e., transmitting information) to execute the abstract idea. Accordingly, because this claim limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation recites methods of organizing human activity, it is considered to be a part of the abstract idea itself and cannot be considered an additional element that provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner further notes that “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include […] Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer […] Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception […] Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case being an abstract idea, without significantly more. A two part test is applied to determine if claims are directed to statutory subject matter.
Step 1
In this instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method (i.e. a process), claims 9-16 are directed to an apparatus (i.e. a machine), and claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a manufacture). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea, as will be discussed in further detail in the analysis to follow.
Step 2A- Prong One
In step 2A, it is determined whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 1-20 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Viewed as a whole, claims 1-20 are directed to receiving information associated with a first shipment, determining a plurality of other existing shipments based on the first shipment information, determining an on-time prediction for each of the other existing shipments, and determining an on-time prediction for the first shipment based on the first shipment information and the on-time delivery prediction for the other existing shipments.
Claim 1 recites, in part:
Receiving […] a first shipment identifier for a first shipment at a first location, wherein the first shipment is associated with a standard level of service, […] and wherein the first shipment metadata comprises a dispatch date/time, an expected delivery date/time, and a first route identifier that is associated with a plurality of route hubs and the standard level of service;
determining, based on the first route identifier, a plurality of existing shipment identifiers for a plurality of existing shipments associated with the plurality of route hubs, wherein the plurality of existing shipments are associated with a plurality of expected delivery dates/times;
determining, via at least one survival model, based on shipment metadata associated with the plurality of existing shipment identifiers, an on-time delivery prediction for each of the plurality of existing shipments at each of the plurality of route hubs, wherein the shipment metadata is indicative of the plurality of existing shipment identifiers being associated with the first route identifier, and wherein the first route identifier is associated with an average estimated delivery time based on the standard level of service;
and determining, via the at least one survival model, based on: the dispatch date/time for the first shipment, the expected delivery date/time for the first shipment, the first shipment being at a first location, wherein the first location comprises one of the plurality of route hubs, and the on-time delivery prediction for each of the plurality of existing shipments at each of the plurality of route hubs, a first on-time delivery prediction for the first shipment, wherein the first on-time delivery prediction comprises a level of confidence associated with the expected delivery date/time.
Based on an indication that at least one existing shipment of the plurality of existing shipments is delayed at the first location, determining, via the at least one survival model, a level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times associated with the plurality of existing shipments, wherein each level of confidence is indicative of a predication that the corresponding existing shipment will be delivered on or before the corresponding expected delivery date/time;
Determining, based on the level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/time, a second route identifier associated with at least one route hub of the plurality of route hubs, wherein the second route identifier is not associated with at least one further route hub of the plurality of route hubs, and wherein the second route identifier is determined based on a relative risk of a late delivery at each of the plurality of route hubs; and
Modifying […] the first shipment metadata such that the first shipment identifier is caused to be associated with the second route identifier instead of the first route identifier;
Causing, […] based on the modification to the first shipment metadata, the first shipment to continue shipment, while the first shipment is in transit, via the at least one route hub associated with the second route identifier instead of the at least one further route hub.
The limitations directed towards receiving information/metadata associated with a first shipment, determining a plurality of other existing shipments based on the first shipment information/metadata, determining an on-time prediction for each of the other existing shipments based on shipment information/metadata associated with the other existing shipments, determining an on-time prediction for the first shipment with a level of confidence based on the first shipment information/metadata and the on-time delivery prediction for the other existing shipments, determining a level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times associated with the plurality of existing shipments based on an indication of a delay, determining a second route identifier associated with at least one route hub of the plurality of route hubs (wherein the second route identifier is not associated with at least one further route hub of the plurality of route hubs and wherein the second route identifier is determined based on a relative risk of a late delivery at each of the plurality of route hubs) based on the level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times, and modifying first shipment metadata to associate the first shipment with a second route identifier are considered to recite concepts of a mental process. In particular, these limitations recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards collecting shipment information/metadata, determining on-time predictions for each of the shipments, and causing a shipment to continue shipment via a route hub associated with a second route identifier based on a modification to shipment metadata recites concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards determining on-time predictions and levels of confidence for a plurality of shipments based on a survival model recite concepts of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas/equations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Thus, claims 1 and 2-8, by virtue of dependence, recite an abstract idea. Moreover, the following claims further recite an additional abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites, in part, “wherein determining the on-time delivery prediction for each of the plurality of existing shipments at each of the plurality of route hubs comprises: receiving, at a threshold interval, a plurality of updates to the shipment metadata associated with the plurality of existing shipment identifiers; and determining, for each of the plurality of existing shipments at each of the plurality of route hubs, based on the plurality of updates, and based on the plurality of expected delivery dates/times associated with the plurality of existing shipments, the level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times”. These limitations recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards collecting shipment information and determining on-time predictions for each of the shipments recites concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards determining on-time predictions for a plurality of shipments based on a survival model recite concepts of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas/equations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 3 recites, in part, “wherein the threshold interval comprises at least one of a static refresh interval or a dynamic refresh interval”. These limitations recite concepts of collecting information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 4 recites, in part, “wherein the plurality of updates comprises at least one of: an indication of a delay, an indication of a loss, an indication of an arrival at a route hub of the plurality of route hubs, or an indication of a departure from a route hub of the plurality of route hubs”. These limitations recite concepts of collecting information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 5 recites, in part, “wherein the level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times differs at each of the plurality of route hubs”. These limitations recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 6 recites, in part, “determining, based on the plurality of updates, that the at least one existing shipments is delayed at a first route hub of the plurality of route hubs, wherein the first location comprises the first route hub; and determining, based on the at least one existing shipment being delayed, and based on the at least one survival model, the on-time delivery prediction for the at least one existing shipment”. These limitations recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards collecting shipment information and determining on-time predictions for each of the shipments recites concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards determining on-time predictions for a plurality of shipments based on a survival model recite concepts of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas/equations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 7 recites, in part, “at least one of: appending, to the first shipment metadata, the level of confidence associated with the expected delivery date/time; modifying a shipment priority associated with the first shipment identifier from a first level of service comprising ground transit via a truck to a second level of service comprising air transit via an airplane; modifying a shipping courier identifier associated with the first shipment identifier; or modifying the expected delivery date/time”. These limitations recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards associating a first shipment identifier with a second route identifier, modifying shipment priorities, modifying a shipping courier identifier associated with a first shipment identifier, or modifying an expected delivery time/date recites concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Claim 8 recites, in part, “Receiving […] second shipment metadata for the first shipment, wherein the second shipment metadata comprises a second location of the first shipment, wherein the second location comprises a second route hub of the plurality of route hubs, wherein the first shipment metadata comprises a date/time that the first shipment arrived at the first location, and wherein the second shipment metadata comprises a date/time that the first shipment arrived at the second location”. Furthermore, claim 8 recites, in part, “determining, via the at least one survival model, based on the date/time that the first shipment arrived at the first location and the date/time that the first shipment arrived at the second location, a second on-time delivery prediction for the first shipment, wherein the second on-time delivery prediction comprises a second level of confidence associated with the expected delivery date/time that is higher than the level of confidence associated with the first on-time delivery prediction”. These limitations recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards collecting shipment information/metadata and determining on-time predictions for shipments with a level of confidence recites concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards determining on-time predictions for shipments based on a survival model recite concepts of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas/equations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 9 recites, in part:
Receive a first shipment identifier for a first shipment at a first location, wherein the first shipment is associated with a standard level of service, […] and wherein the first shipment metadata comprises a dispatch date/time, an expected delivery date/time, and a first route identifier that is associated with a plurality of route hubs and the standard level of service;
determine, based on the first route identifier, a plurality of existing shipment identifiers for a plurality of existing shipments associated with the plurality of route hubs, wherein the plurality of existing shipments are associated with a plurality of expected delivery dates/times;
determine, via at least one survival model, based on shipment metadata associated with the plurality of existing shipment identifiers, an on-time delivery prediction for each of the plurality of existing shipments at each of the plurality of route hubs, wherein the shipment metadata is indicative of the plurality of existing shipment identifiers being associated with the first route identifier, and wherein the first route identifier is associated with an average estimated delivery time based on the standard level of service;
determine, by the at least one survival model, based on: the dispatch date/time for the first shipment, the expected delivery date/time for the first shipment, the first shipment being at the first location, wherein the first location comprises one of the plurality of route hubs, and the on-time delivery prediction for each of the plurality of existing shipments at each of the plurality of route hubs, a first on-time delivery prediction for the first shipment, wherein the first on-time delivery prediction comprises a level of confidence associated with the expected delivery date/time.
Based on an indication that at least one existing shipment of the plurality of existing shipments is delayed at the first location, determine, via the at least one survival model, a level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times associated with the plurality of existing shipments, wherein each level of confidence is indicative of a predication that the corresponding existing shipment will be delivered on or before the corresponding expected delivery date/time;
Determine, based on the level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/time, a second route identifier associated with at least one route hub of the plurality of route hubs, wherein the second route identifier is not associated with at least one further route hub of the plurality of route hubs, and wherein the second route identifier is determined based on a relative risk of a late delivery at each of the plurality of route hubs; and
Modify […] the first shipment metadata such that the first shipment identifier is caused to be associated with the second route identifier instead of the first route identifier;
Cause, based on the modification to the first shipment metadata, the first shipment to continue shipment, while the first shipment is in transit, via the at least one route hub associated with the second route identifier instead of the at least one further route hub.
The limitations directed towards receiving information/metadata associated with a first shipment, determining a plurality of other existing shipments based on the first shipment information/metadata, determining an on-time prediction for each of the other existing shipments based on shipment information/metadata associated with the other existing shipments, determining an on-time prediction for the first shipment with a level of confidence based on the first shipment information/metadata and the on-time delivery prediction for the other existing shipments, determining a level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times associated with the plurality of existing shipments based on an indication of a delay, determining a second route identifier associated with at least one route hub of the plurality of route hubs (wherein the second route identifier is not associated with at least one further route hub of the plurality of route hubs and wherein the second route identifier is determined based on a relative risk of a late delivery at each of the plurality of route hubs) based on the level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times, and modifying first shipment metadata to associate the first shipment with a second route identifier are considered to recite concepts of a mental process. In particular, these limitations recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards collecting shipment information/metadata, determining on-time predictions for each of the shipments, and causing a shipment to continue shipment via a route hub associated with a second route identifier based on a modification to shipment metadata recites concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards determining on-time predictions and levels of confidence for a plurality of shipments based on a survival model recite concepts of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas/equations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Thus, claims 9 and 10-16, by virtue of dependence, recite an abstract idea.
Claims 10-16 recite limitations that are substantially similar and analogous to the limitations of claims 2-8, respectively. Accordingly, claims 10-16 recite the same abstract ideas as discussed above with regard to claims 2-8, respectively.
Claim 17 recites, in part:
Receive a first shipment identifier for a first shipment at a first location, wherein the first shipment is associated with a standard level of service, […] and wherein the first shipment metadata comprises a dispatch date/time, an expected delivery date/time, and a first route identifier that is associated with a plurality of route hubs and the standard level of service;
determine, based on the first route identifier, a plurality of existing shipment identifiers for a plurality of existing shipments associated with the plurality of route hubs, wherein the plurality of existing shipments are associated with a plurality of expected delivery dates/times;
determine, via at least one survival model, based on shipment metadata associated with the plurality of existing shipment identifiers, an on-time delivery prediction for each of the plurality of existing shipments at each of the plurality of route hubs, wherein the shipment metadata is indicative of the plurality of existing shipment identifiers being associated with the first route identifier, and wherein the first route identifier is associated with an average estimated delivery time based on the standard level of service;
determine, by the at least one survival model, based on: the dispatch date/time for the first shipment, the expected delivery date/time for the first shipment, the first shipment being at the first location, wherein the first location comprises one of the plurality of route hubs, and the on-time delivery prediction for each of the plurality of existing shipments at each of the plurality of route hubs, a first on-time delivery prediction for the first shipment, wherein the first on-time delivery prediction comprises a level of confidence associated with the expected delivery date/time;
Based on an indication that at least one existing shipment of the plurality of existing shipments is delayed at the first location, determine, via the at least one survival model, a level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times associated with the plurality of existing shipments, wherein each level of confidence is indicative of a predication that the corresponding existing shipment will be delivered on or before the corresponding expected delivery date/time;
Determine, based on the level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/time, a second route identifier associated with at least one route hub of the plurality of route hubs, wherein the second route identifier is not associated with at least one further route hub of the plurality of route hubs, and wherein the second route identifier is determined based on a relative risk of a late delivery at each of the plurality of route hubs;
Modify […] the first shipment metadata such that the first shipment identifier is caused to be associated with the second route identifier instead of the first route identifier;
Cause, based on the modification to the first shipment metadata, the first shipment to continue shipment, while the first shipment is in transit, via the at least one route hub associated with the second route identifier instead of the at least one further route hub.
The limitations directed towards receiving information/metadata associated with a first shipment, determining a plurality of other existing shipments based on the first shipment information/metadata, determining an on-time prediction for each of the other existing shipments based on shipment information/metadata associated with the other existing shipments, determining an on-time prediction for the first shipment with a level of confidence based on the first shipment information/metadata and the on-time delivery prediction for the other existing shipments, determining a level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times associated with the plurality of existing shipments based on an indication of a delay, determining a second route identifier associated with at least one route hub of the plurality of route hubs (wherein the second route identifier is not associated with at least one further route hub of the plurality of route hubs and wherein the second route identifier is determined based on a relative risk of a late delivery at each of the plurality of route hubs) based on the level of confidence for each of the plurality of expected delivery dates/times, and modifying first shipment metadata to associate the first shipment with a second route identifier are considered to recite concepts of a mental process. In particular, these limitations recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards collecting shipment information/metadata, determining on-time predictions for each of the shipments, and causing a shipment to continue shipment via a route hub associated with a second route identifier based on a modification to shipment metadata recites concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards determining on-time predictions and levels of confidence for a plurality of shipments based on a survival model recite concepts of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas/equations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Thus, claims 17 and 18-20, by virtue of dependence, recite an abstract idea.
Claims 18-20 recite limitations that are substantially similar and analogous to the limitations of claims 2-4, respectively. Accordingly, claims 18-20 recite the same abstract ideas as discussed above with regard to claims 2-4, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong Two
In the second prong of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to determine if additional elements are recited that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 2-8, by virtue of dependence, recite the additional elements of a computing device, a database, features for transmitting data over a network (i.e., receiving a first shipment identifier and first shipment metadata), and features for electronic recordkeeping (i.e., storing a first shipment identifier in a database, modifying first shipment metadata stored in the database). The computing device, database, and features for electronic recordkeeping are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere computer tools and instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Further, transmitting/receiving data over a network is considered an additional element directed to mere data gathering, thus is considered merely as insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Claims 8 and 16 recite the additional elements of a shipment module associated with at least one route hub associated with a second route identifier. The shipment module is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions or tools to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Claims 9 and 10-16, by virtue of dependence, recite the additional elements of one or more processors, a memory storing processor executable instructions, a database, features for transmitting data over a network (i.e., receiving a first shipment identifier and first shipment metadata), and features for electronic recordkeeping (i.e., storing a first shipment identifier in a database, modifying first shipment metadata stored in the database). The processor, memory storing processor executable instructions, database, and features for electronic recordkeeping are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere computer tools and instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Further, transmitting/receiving data over a network is considered an additional element directed to mere data gathering, thus is considered merely as insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Claims 17 and 18-20, by virtue of dependence, recite the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor executable instructions, a processor, a database, features for transmitting data over a network (i.e., receiving a first shipment identifier and first shipment metadata), and features for electronic recordkeeping (i.e., storing a first shipment identifier in a database, modifying first shipment metadata stored in the database). The non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor executable instructions, processor, database, and features for electronic recordkeeping are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere computer tools and instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Further, transmitting/receiving data over a network is considered an additional element directed to mere data gathering, thus is considered merely as insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Accordingly, the computing device, processors, memory storing processor executable instructions, non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor executable instructions, database, shipment module, features for transmitting data over a network, and features for electronic recordkeeping do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Proceeding to step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In absence of the abstract idea, claims 1-20 are merely left with a computing device, processors, memory storing processor executable instructions, non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor executable instructions, database, shipment module, features for transmitting data over a network, and features for electronic recordkeeping.
Claims 1-20 and their limitations separately and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of claims 1-20 are simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as recognized by the courts. As discussed in the Step 2A-Prong Two analysis, the features for transmitting/receiving data over a network is considered an additional element directed to mere data gathering/outputting, thus is considered merely as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, as discussed in the Step 2A-Prong Two analysis, the features for electronic recordkeeping are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere computer tools and instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, and retrieving information in a memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) (II). Thus, the steps involving the transmitting and receiving of data over a network and electronic recordkeeping, when considered as a whole/ordered combination, do not demonstrate an inventive step that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea as the courts have recognized transmitting data over a network and electronic recordkeeping to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The computing device, one or more processors, memory storing processor executable instructions, non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor executable instructions, database, shipment module, and features for electronic recordkeeping are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions or tools to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Viewed as a whole, claims 1-20, and the limitations thereof, essentially disclose an abstract idea facilitated by additional elements considered to be generic computing components to apply the judicial exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements discussed above and their functions are not new or invention concepts, thus cannot be considered amounting to significantly more. The additional claim limitations that are not considered to be an abstract idea do not rise to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are not reflective of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to a technical field, and they do not implement the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Further, the Examiner notes that “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include […] Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer […] Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception […] Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Thus, the additional elements that are considered to be generic computing components to apply the judicial exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, when considered as a whole/ordered combination, are not considered to amount to an inventive concept and, thus, do not qualify as “significantly more”. Therefore, there are no meaningful limitations, individually or in combination, in claims 1-20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. For the reasons set forth above, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101.
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 whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
