DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-27 are pending in the instant application. Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No claims have been added. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final.
Response to Remarks
101
As stated, in the prior office action, the examiner submits that Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not found to be persuasive.
The examiner submits that for subject matter eligibility, the examiner’s burden is met by clearly articulating the reason(s) why the claimed invention is not eligible and explains why they do not amount to significantly more than the exception. This rationale may rely, where appropriate, on the knowledge generally available in the art, on the case law precedent, on applicant's own disclosure, or on evidence. The courts consider the determination of whether a claim is eligible to be a question of law. Accordingly, courts do not rely on evidence that a claimed concept is a judicial exception, and in most cases resolve the ultimate legal conclusion on eligibility without making any factual findings. For example, Alice Corp, Myriad, Mayo, Bilski, Diehr, Flook, and Benson relied solely on comparisons to concepts found to be exceptions in past decisions when identifying judicial exceptions. Similarly, the Interim Eligibility Guidance follows the analysis used by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit by comparing claimed concepts to prior court decisions to identify a law of nature, phenomenon, or an abstract idea for step 2A. For step 2B, examiners must rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well understood, routine, and conventional.
The examiner submits that, consistent with the statute and legislative history of the AIA , the examiner interprets the pending claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant's specification. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 448667, at *5–8 (Fed. Cir.Feb. 4, 2015). There is a “‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The examiner has determined that the analysis of the pending claims did not require an express interpretation of any term.
The pending claims are found to be directed to systems and methods for the management and transportation of items within a transportation vehicle (see at least claim 1). In Mayo, the Supreme Court set out a two-step “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. First, courts must determine if the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. See id. If not, the inquiry ends, as the claims are patent-eligible. But if so, the next step is to look for an “‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. After carefully applying the two step framework, the examiner submits that the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that falls under the category of an idea of itself. The claim limitations, analyzed individually and as a whole, recite nothing more than the collection of information to generate packing instructions for items within a transportation vehicle. The series of steps covered by the pending claims could all be performed by a human without a computer (see at least Cybersource). Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims must include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-eligible. No such inventive concept is present in the pending claims. The claims merely add only generic computer components such as a “remote dimensioning device", “machine learning model” , “communications interface”, and "processor.” These generic computer components do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement (see at least Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), BuySAFE, and Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.). Nothing as recited in the pending claims “purport[s] to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field." Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. Nor do the claims solve a problem unique to the internet (see DDR Holdings). Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and nothing in the claims adds an inventive concept, the claims are not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding Applicant's assertions pertaining to the eligibility of the pending claims under 35 USC 101, the examiner submits that the Federal Circuit has found (see at least EPG v Alstom) that the collection, analysis, and display of certain results of collection and analysis to be a patent ineligible concept. The Court found that the process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, devoid of any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing said functions to be directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has found that the when the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools, that the claims fail to do more than merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from 101 undergirds the information based category of abstract ideas. The pending claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods that would generate new data and further do not invoke any inventive programming. The Courts have found that merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information to provide a humanly comprehensible amount of information useful for users, by itself does not transform the otherwise abstract processes of information collection and analysis. The two part analysis has to take into account how the desired result is achieved. The examiner submits that the computers, networks, and displays as recited in the pending claims does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The pending claims do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces, but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, requires anything other than off the shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. The pending claims further fail to include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything other than generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguable inventive concept in the realm of application of the information based abstract idea.
For at least the reasoning provided above, the examiner submits that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained and made final. The examiner suggests amending the language of the claims to include wherein there is a determination of the dimension data based on the image analysis of the stereoscopic images, as outlined in at least paragraphs [0017] and [0028] of Applicant’s specification (specifically wherein the shipper network100 also includes one or more dimensioning devices220 that can be used to capture accurate dimensions of pieces108 in a shipment106. In this example, the dimensioning device220 is a handheld electronic device that includes two cameras arranged to capture stereoscopic images. Some examples may also include a laser or ultrasonic rangefinder that can be used to determine distances between two points. For example, the dimensioning device220 may include a RealSenseTM depth camera from Intel® Corporation to enable the dimensioning device220 to capture images of the pieces108 in the shipment and determine their length, width, and height dimensions. In some examples, the dimensioning device220 may employ a depth camera or a laser ranging device, such as Lidar to capture accurate dimension information), and further wherein the equipment is performing the loading method step as outlined in at least paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification, and wherein the selection and allocation steps are tied to a hardware device accompanied by analysis software, as outlined in at least paragraphs [0034] and [0043] of Applicant’s specification. The examiner submits that the amendments as filed by Applicant on 02/02/2026 are found to be insufficient by the examiner to overcome the pending rejection under 35 USC 101, for at least the reasoning provided above, and the rejection is hereby maintained. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are found to be unpersuasive. The examiner submits that at least paragraph [0060] to De Magalhaes et al discloses the use of photogrammetry to determine dimension data based on image analysis, and paragraph [0046] wherein image and video data may be obtained via devices. The examiner further submits that Powers et al discloses wherein there is a GUI for a handheld device that outputs packing instructions. For at least the reasoning provided above, the examiner submits that the newly amended claim language as presented by Applicant is obviated by the disclosure of the applied prior art of record, and the rejection of the pending claims is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the MPEP 2106 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance analysis which follows.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-7), non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 15-21) and a system (claims 8–14), where the system and non-transitory computer readable medium are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of organizing and packing a shipment within a transport vehicle by:
receiving, from a handheld remote dimensioning device, dimension information, the dimension information based on stereoscopic images providing a length, a width, and a height for each of the one or more pieces; transporting, using one or more first transport vehicles, the shipment to a first shipper facility; using a first trained machine learning ("ML") model selected from a plurality of ML models and the dimension information to:
select one or more second transport vehicles based on the dimension information; and
allocate, each piece of the shipment to one or more second transport vehicles and loading each piece of the shipment according to the allocating, the allocating used to determine a position for each piece of the shipment on a second transport vehicle; wherein the first trained ML model;
is based on a mixed integer programming (“MIP”) model constrained based on a capacity of the one or more second transport vehicles; and
is trained based on length, width, and height dimension information for one or more training pieces; transporting, using the one or more second transport vehicles, the shipment to a second shipper facility; allocating, using a second trained machine learning ("ML") model and using the dimension information, each piece of the shipment to one or more third transport vehicles, wherein the second trained ML model is trained based on at least two of the length, width, or height dimension information for the one or more pieces;
loading each piece of the shipment onto a third transport vehicle according to the allocating, wherein the loading is performed according to allocation information transmitted to equipment at the second shipper facility; and
transporting, using the one or more third transport vehicles, the shipment from the third shipper facility to the destination.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated MPEP 2106 categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which commercial or legal interactions (e.g., sales activities or behaviors which includes shipment allocation and packing associated with orders and inventory).
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “remote dimensioning device,” and “machine learning model” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). Independent claims 8 and 15 are nearly identical to independent claim 1 and so the analysis for claim 1 also applies to claims 8 and 15.
Dependent claims 3–7, 10-12, 14, and 17-19 and 21-27 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the MPEP 2106 analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea). The examiner suggests amending the language of the claims to include wherein there is a determination of the dimension data based on the image analysis of the stereoscopic images, as outlined in at least paragraphs [0017] and [0028] of Applicant’s specification, and further wherein the equipment is performing the loading method step as outlined in at least paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification, and wherein the selection and allocation steps are tied to a hardware device accompanied by analysis software, as outlined in at least paragraphs [0034] and [0043] of Applicant’s specification. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Magalhaes et al (US 2020/0219048) in view of Powers et al (US 2022/0122031), and further in view of Nomoto et al (US 2015/0379450).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a method comprising: receiving information for a shipment (see at least paragraph [0027] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein the transportation management application 160 can be configured to analyze…transportation information), the shipment comprising one or more pieces, the information comprising information about a destination (see at least paragraph [0027] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein the transportation information by the transportation management application 160 to determine package constraints associated with each transportation path in a transportation route and paragraph [0063] “The transportation plan can include the various transportation nodes within the transportation route (e.g., a starting point, layover locations, and one or more destinations)”); receiving, from a handheld remote dimensioning device, dimension information comprising a length, a width, and a height for each of the one or more pieces (see at least paragraph [0062] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein “the output of the package determiner 330 can include the total weight of items to be housed within one or more packages, dimensions (e.g., the height, length, and width) of each item, package(s) in which the items will be housed, the weight of each package, the available space within each package, the number of packages, and the dimensions of each package”)wherein the handheld remote dimensioning device comprises one or more cameras and the dimension information is determined using image analysis of one or more stereoscopic images captured using the one or more cameras (see at least paragraph [0060] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein the package determiner 330 can be configured to determine item and/or package characteristics solely based on an image analysis. For example, a user may snap one or more images of a particular item or package they intend on traveling with. The image processing module 315 can then be configured to approximate the product material (e.g., a metal, cloth, plastic, etc.) or classification (e.g., a blow dryer, a t-shirt, a pair of shoes) using image recognition techniques (e.g., IBM Watson™ Image Recognition). In embodiments, the image processing module 315 can be configured to approximate dimensions of the product using photogrammetry techniques); transporting, using one or more first transport vehicles, the shipment to a first shipper facility (see at least paragraph [0063] to De Magalhaes et al “The transportation plan can include the various transportation nodes within the transportation route (e.g., a starting point, layover locations, and one or more destinations), the transportation modes in between the transportation nodes (e.g., including the model of the vehicle and transportation facilitator for each travel path), and the time and date of arrival at each travel node” the examiner submits that the travel node as disclosed by the applied prior art is considered to be analogous to the first shipper facility as recited in the pending claims); using a first trained ML model selected from a plurality of ML models and the dimension information to:
Select one or more second transport vehicles based on the dimension information (see at least paragraph [0089] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein transportation constraints are then determined. This is illustrated at operation 410. Transportation constraints can be determined in any suitable manner. In some embodiments, unstructured input data describing the transportation route (e.g., images of transportation tickets, a confirmation email, a receipt, etc.) can be received and a transportation agency or vehicle model can be determined based on the input data), and
allocate each piece of the shipment to the one or more second transport vehicles and loading each piece of the shipment according to the allocating (see at least paragraph [0073] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein “the specification can be structured by the natural language processor 325, and the constraint determiner 340 can be configured to determine an amount of available space (e.g., in the trunk of the van) and recommended load from the van specification” and paragraph [0062] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein the output of the package determiner can total weight and dimensions of each item); and
is trained based on length, width, and height dimension information for one or more training pieces (see at least paragraphs [0077-0076] to De Magalhaes et al wherein “the learning module 345 can be configured to improve size/weight predictions made by the package determiner 330. For example, assume the total weight of a package (including the items stored therein) was determined to be 35 lbs. The learning module 345 can then be configured to receive a user measurement (e.g., a scale measurement) of the package including the items. Based on the difference between the estimation and the actual measurement, a feedback signal can be provided to the package determiner 330”); transporting, using the one or more second transport vehicles, the shipment to a second shipper facility (see at least paragraph [0065] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein the transportation plan includes transport nodes and transportation modes associated with each node); allocating, using a second trained machine learning ("ML") model and using the dimension information, each piece of the shipment to one or more third transport vehicles, wherein the second trained ML model is trained based on at least two of the length, width, or height dimension information for the one or more pieces (see at least paragraph [0081] to De Magalhaes et al wherein “ the analyzer 350 can be configured to determine whether items an individual plans on transporting will fit within a particular package or set of packages. For example, based on the determined package characteristics, a total item volume (e.g., the volume that the collective items will require) can be compared to a total package volume (e.g., the available space among all packages). If the total item volume exceeds the total package volume, a determination can be made that the items will not fit within the available package space. The analyzer 350 can then prompt the recommender 355 to issue one or more package reconfigurations and/or item suggestions” the examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that volume is calculated using the dimensional attributes associated with an object and as such anticipates the dimensional data recited in the pending claims); and transporting, using the one or more third transport vehicles, the shipment from the third shipper facility to the destination (see at least paragraph [0063] to De Magalhaes et al wherein “the transport plan determiner 335 is configured to generate a transportation plan (e.g., a structured itinerary) based on an individual's travel information. Structured input data describing an individual's transportation route (e.g., images of flight tickets, electronic confirmation emails, web data from transportation agencies, etc.) received from the data structuring system 306 and/or data receiving module 310 can be organized into a transportation plan. The transportation plan can include the various transportation nodes within the transportation route (e.g., a starting point, layover locations, and one or more destinations), the transportation modes in between the transportation nodes (e.g., including the model of the vehicle and transportation facilitator for each travel path), and the time and date of arrival at each travel node) and loading each piece of the shipment onto a third transport vehicle of the one or more third transport vehicles according to the allocating, wherein the loading is performed according to allocation information transmitted to equipment at the second shipper facility (see at least paragraph [0102] to Powers et al, wherein the item information is retrieved from remote Database 1305 by the API Host Server 1301 upon receiving the item order request. The API Host Server 1301 then transmits the item order and item information to the appropriate Packing Control System 1307) comprising handheld or equipment-mounted devices configured to present the allocation information to shipper personnel (see at least paragraph [0040] to Powers et al, wherein The optimized packing solution may be displayed in form of a visual illustration or representation of a packing instruction via GUI 109); and the examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the transportation plan as disclosed by the applied prior art are instructions to effectuate the transport of one or more items and/ or packages. The examiner submits that the transportation plan therefore anticipates the transporting of a shipment as recited in the pending claims, in that the items and/or packages in question are intended to be transported based on the instructions provided by the transport plan determiner 335 and wherein the transport model is an associated vehicle (see at least paragraph [0065] to De Magalhaes et al).
De Magalhaes et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the allocation is used to determine a position for each piece of the shipment on a third transport vehicle and wherein the allocating used to determine a position for each piece of the shipment on a second transport vehicle.
However, Powers et al discloses systems and methods for packing optimization and visualization, wherein the allocation is used to determine a position for each piece of the shipment on a third transport vehicle and wherein the allocating used to determine a position for each piece of the shipment on a second transport vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0041] and [0104] and Figure 6 to Powers et al).
Magalhaes et al and Powers et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first trained ML model is based on a mixed-integer programming (MIP) model constrained based on a capacity of the one or more second transport vehicles.
Nomoto et al discloses a supply rule generating device and supply rule generating program and associated method, wherein the first trained ML model is based on a mixed-integer programming (MIP) model constrained based on a capacity of the one or more second transport vehicles (see at least paragraph [0058] to Nomoto et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the item transportation management system and method, as disclosed by De Magalhaes et al and the systems and methods for packing optimization and visualization as taught by Powers et al, further in view of the system and method as taught by Nomoto et al, in order to provide an optimized packing and shipping solution could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the determining the position comprises selecting a location from a set of predetermined locations for the respective second transport vehicle (see at least paragraph [0081] to De Magalhaes et al wherein “ the analyzer 350 can be configured to determine whether items an individual plans on transporting will fit within a particular package or set of packages. For example, based on the determined package characteristics, a total item volume (e.g., the volume that the collective items will require) can be compared to a total package volume (e.g., the available space among all packages). If the total item volume exceeds the total package volume, a determination can be made that the items will not fit within the available package space. The analyzer 350 can then prompt the recommender 355 to issue one or more package reconfigurations and/or item suggestions” The examiner submits that the term “position” as recited in the pending claims is not defined within Applicant’s specification as originally filed. The examiner therefore interprets “determining the position” to be allocation of an item or package into a predetermined location within a space comprising a predetermined volume associated with known dimensions).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the position comprises determining a vertical level within the second transport vehicle (see at least paragraph [0070] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein the transport restrictions include linear size restrictions (e.g., the added height, length, and width)”).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising updating at least one of the second or third trained ML models based on the dimension information (see at least paragraph [0075] to De Magalhaes et al wherein “The learning module 345 can be configured to receive user feedback regarding determinations made by the package determiner 330, transport plan determiner 335, and constraint determiner 340. This feedback can be used to improve the characterization of package(s) and items, the generation of the transport plan, and the determination of the constraints” The examiner has interpreted the feedback provided by the package determiner to the learning module 345 to be analogous to the updating as recited in the pending claims).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising predicting, using a third ML model, the dimension information based on the information for the shipment (see at least paragraph [0055] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein “The package determiner 330 can determine package and/or item characteristics in any suitable manner. In some embodiments, the package determiner 330 determines an identity (e.g., a product identifier, serial number, model number, etc.) of a product (e.g., a particular package or item to be stored) and references an online database (e.g., a manufacturer website and/or market place) to determine the characteristics of the product, for example, by referencing a specification indicating the dimensions and size of the product” The examiner submits that the applied prior art reference uses machine learning technology (see at least paragraph [0061] to De Magalhaes et al, wherein the image processing module uses machine learning to identify and analyze the packages for output by the package determine 330 in paragraph [0062] ).
Regarding claim 22, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the position for each piece of the shipment on a second transport vehicle is determined using a bin-packing algorithm (see at least paragraph [0062] to Powers et al).
Claims 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Magalhaes et al (US 2020/0219048) in view of Powers et al (US 2022/0122031), and further in view of Nomoto et al (US 2015/0379450).
Regarding claim 23, the prior art discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the position for each piece of the shipment on a second transport vehicle is further determined using a mixed- integer programming ("MIP") model and one or more constraints (see at least paragraph [0058] to Nomoto et al). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the item transportation management system and method, as disclosed by De Magalhaes et al and the systems and methods for packing optimization and visualization as taught by Powers et al, further in view of the supply rule generating device and method, as taught by Nomoto et al, in order to provide an optimized packing and shipping solution could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
*****Claims 8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19, 21, and 24-27 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627