DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Reopening of Prosecution
In view of the appeal brief filed on October 15, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/Jerry O'Connor/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Group Art Unit
Application Status
1. This non-final Office action is in reply to an Appeal Brief filed 15 October 2025.
2. This non-final Office action is being made non-final as a result of a typographical error from the Non-final Office action filed 15 April 2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
4. Claims 27-61 are currently pending and have been re-examined.
Response to Amendment
This non-final Office action is being made non-final as a result from the Appeal Brief conference conducted on 20 29 February 2026 with Supervisors Patricia Munson and Jerry O’Connor.
As indicated above, the Examiner did not establish the prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner did not provide any specific rationale to combine the previous cited prior art references with rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel et al. (Spiegel) (US 2012/0323645) in view of Spremulli (US 2013/0173417) due to typographical errors referencing citations from previous prior art citations from uncited-reference Keller (US 2012/00300707). As a result, the Examiner presents a corrected version of the non-final Office action filed 15 April 2025 in response to Applicants’ arguments/amendments filed 07 March 2024.
In the previous Office action, Claims 1-26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention was directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants had cancelled originally examined Claims 1-26 and added new claims 27-61. However these new claims still recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) of generally, “automatically distributing products” without significantly more, and the rejection is maintained. See below for further clarification.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07 March 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 27-61, Applicants argue that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation.
Applicant submits that: (2) the previously cited prior art rejections do not teach new Claims 27-61 [see Remarks pages 12-17]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since original Claims 1-26 had been cancelled and new Claims 27-61 are submitted, these new claims have changed the original claim scope from originally filed Claims 1-26, thus necessitating the new grounds of rejection, and the arguments are moot. See below rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel et al. (Spiegel) (US 2012/0323645) in view of Spremulli (US/2013/0173417) and further in view of Kuelbs et al. (Kuelbs) (US 2005/0283406). It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
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 27-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 27-61 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely “system; method” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 27-61 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for basically, as a whole describe how to generally, “automatically distributing products” from the below step limitations:
“receiving, by a computer processor, from a one or more distributors a product input information for a one or more products, the product input information comprises a product identifier and a product input price;
determining, by a computer processor, a product minimum order quantity based on determining, by the processor, a maximum number of a one or more products capable of fitting within a cargo container;
sending, by the processor, for display in a buyer interface a product output information, the product output information comprising the product identifier, a product purchase price, and a product minimum order quantity;
receiving, by the processor, a plurality of orders for the one or more products from a plurality of buyers through the buyer interface determining, by the processor, the product minimum order quantity of the one or more products are ordered; and, determining, by the processor, a shipment routing of the one or more products for each of the plurality of orders in response to the product minimum order quantity of the one or more products being ordered, comprising
determining a plurality of sets of shipping routes for shipping the plurality of orders, each set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes comprises a destination shipping hub and a plurality of shipping routes to a corresponding plurality of order delivery locations where the one or more products of the plurality of orders will be delivered, the destination shipping hub is common to each of the plurality of shipping routes within the set and is unique from the destination shipping hub of every other set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes;
calculating an aggregated shipping cost for each set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes;
determining the set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes that corresponds to a lowest aggregated shipping cost; and,
selecting the set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes for shipping the plurality of orders that corresponds to the lowest aggregated shipping cost”
The 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A, Prong One analysis focuses on whether a claim recites a judicial exception by evaluating if it falls into one of three specific groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity. Based on the provided steps above in bolded, the analysis for Step 2A Prong One is as follows:
Mathematical concepts – [mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations]. At least the calculation of product minimum order quantity (dividing cargo space by product size) and determining the lowest aggregated shipping cost constitute mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity – [commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)]. The steps described (receiving input, determining minimum order quantity based on container capacity, sending information to an interface, receiving orders, calculating shipping routes, and choosing the lowest cost) are fundamental business practices. The core of the invention is optimizing a supply chain/logistics process, which is a commercial transaction method commonly practiced by humans and, more recently, by computers.
Mental processes – [concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)]. In at least the steps described “determining the set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes that corresponds to a lowest aggregated shipping cost; and, selecting the set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes for shipping the plurality of orders that corresponds to the lowest aggregated shipping cost” constitute a mental process of determining shipping routes and selecting sets of shipping routes for a plurality of orders that can be manually performed by a person accomplished from the step results with pen and paper.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Claims 27-61: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describe how to generally, “automatically distributing products”. Claims 27-61 recite additional elements directed to “controller; [various] components; processor)” Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 27-61 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “controller; [various] components; processor”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). While the claims use a "processor", this is likely viewed as performing conventional, routine, and well-understood functions (receiving data, computing) as exemplified in the below prior art 103(a) rejection under Spiegel et al. (Spiegel) (US 2012/0323645) (“computer system 1100”) (Spiegel, see at least paragraphs 20-26, 102-106). The steps of calculating and organizing do not improve the computer's functionality, but rather use the computer as a tool to perform economic calculations. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored (e.g., see Applicant Specification ¶’s 6-9, 23-31). “controller 22” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 27-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27-37, 40-52, and 55-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel et al. (Spiegel) (US 2012/0323645) in view of Spremulli (US 2013/0173417).
With regard to Claims 27, 44, 59, Spiegel teaches a computer system for automatically distributing products, comprising: a controller comprising a communication component configured to/computer implemented method of automatic product (products; packaged product) distribution (distributors often ship products to recipients, such as retail customers or other distributors. At least a portion of such shipments is frequently conducted through a common carrier. Generally speaking, a common carrier may be a business, firm or other entity that offers transportation services; fulfillment center 110 may include a conventional warehouse or distribution center, in which inventory storage, picking, packaging and shipping occurs out of the same physical location. However, in other embodiments the various functions carried out at fulfillment center 110 may be distributed across several different physical locations. For example, in one embodiment of fulfillment center 110, limited inventory may be stored at a location where picking, packaging and shipping occur, and the limited inventory may be replenished (e.g., on a just-in-time basis) from a larger inventory stored elsewhere, or directly from suppliers; computer system 1100) (see at least paragraphs 20-26, 102-106), comprising:
a controller comprising a communication component configured to receive from a one or more distributors a product input information for a one or more products (information about those packages), the product input information (A delivery address of a package may include both a physical address identifying a delivery location and an addressee identifying an intended recipient at the delivery location. As described in greater detail below, different paths may be provided for packages between fulfillment center 110 and delivery location 130, including expedited service paths, non-expedited service paths, and downstream tendering or injection into a common carrier network via a private carrier. Also, in some embodiments, a fulfillment center 110 may tender packages to a number of different common carriers, each providing a shipping network similar to that shown) comprises a product identifier (to identify items or packages) and a product input price (Subsequent to determining the potential cost of returning or redirecting the near-proximity package 260, the package is offered to the potentially-interested customer at a discounted price, where the discounted price depends on the determined potential cost of return or redirection (block 706). For example, rather than incur the potential cost of returning or redirecting a package 260 without a sale, some or all of the potential cost may be offered as a discount to a potentially interested customer, such as via e-commerce portal 290a, as an inducement to convert the potential interest into an order), and to send for display in a buyer interface a product output information for the one or more products, the product output information comprising the product identifier (The serial identifier of a product unit may be associated with the product unit itself (e.g., an International Mobile Equipment Identifier (IMEI) or other serial number)), a product purchase price, and a product minimum order quantity (Some time after a given package 260 is speculatively shipped, a customer may place an order for the one or more items included in given package 260, which order may include a specific delivery address within a particular geographical area. For example, a customer may place an order online via e-commerce portal 290a, or in person at physical storefront 290b. (In other embodiments, the order may be placed on behalf of a customer either online or at a physical storefront, such as by a telephone representative or a salesperson.) A record of the order may be stored in order database 280. In response to the order being placed, the order may also be transmitted to one or more fulfillment centers 110 via network 230. Fulfillment computer system 210 may then query data warehouse 220 to determine whether a speculatively shipped package 260 that is currently in transit partially or completely satisfies the requirements of the order. If no package 260 in transit satisfies the order (or if the order specifies that all items be shipped together, disqualifying partial packages 260 in transit), the order may be fulfilled through the ordinary fulfillment process (e.g., inventory may be picked, packaged and shipped to the delivery address provided by the customer)) (see at least paragraphs 20-26, 30-39, 73);
an order aggregator component configured to receive a plurality of orders for the one or more products (The inventory may be managed and/or tracked by a computerized product reservation system. The product reservation system may monitor the status and location of each serialized product unit of the inventory and may handle orders for product units. Orders may be received from computerized requesting systems; As packages are shipped from fulfillment center 110, in the illustrated embodiment information about those packages may be captured by fulfillment computer system 210 and stored by data warehouse 220. In one embodiment, data warehouse 220 may include a database or other data repository configured to store such captured data) from a plurality of buyers (customer) through the buyer interface (a customer may place an order online via e-commerce portal 290a) and to determine the product minimum order quantity of the one or more products are ordered (Prior to a customer placing a corresponding order, each of a number of packages 260 including one or more items is then speculatively shipped to a corresponding destination geographical area without a completely specified delivery address (block 604). A customer then places an order with a particular delivery address, which order is satisfiable by one of speculatively shipped packages 260 (block 606). In response to the customer order, a closest-proximity one of the order-satisfying speculatively shipped packages 260 to the particular delivery address is selected (block 608). For example, in one embodiment, fulfillment computer system 210 may be configured to identify the current locations of all in-transit speculatively shipped packages 260 that satisfy the order) (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 66);
an order fulfillment component configured to automatically (fulfillment center 110), in response to the product minimum order quantity of the one or more products being ordered, determine a plurality of sets of shipping routes for shipping the plurality of orders (In response to the customer order, a closest-proximity one of the order-satisfying speculatively shipped packages 260 to the particular delivery address is selected (block 608). For example, in one embodiment, fulfillment computer system 210 may be configured to identify the current locations of all in-transit speculatively shipped packages 260 that satisfy the order. Then, shipping model 410 may be configured to rank the proximity (e.g., by shipping latency) of all the qualifying packages 260 with respect to the particular delivery address, and to choose the closest-proximity package 260. In some embodiments, it is contemplated that a given speculatively shipped package 260 may be selected as a closest-proximity package for a particular order before the given package 260 has reached its original destination geographical area. For example, while in transit to a hub 120 associated with its specified destination geographical area, a speculatively shipped package 260 may pass through, or be predicted to pass through, another hub 120 corresponding to a geographical area from which a customer order was received. Depending on the other packages 260 within the shipping network, the parameters of the customer order, or any other relevant factors, the package 260 in question may be diverted from its original destination to satisfy the customer order), each set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes (A destination may be a completely specified delivery address, but in some embodiments a predictive shipping model may support latency predictions for multiple degrees of granularity of destinations (e.g., broad geographical regions, specific geographical areas, delivery zones/routes within geographical areas, street addresses, etc.) comprises a destination shipping hub (fulfillment computer system 210 may convey the delivery address to shipping hub computer system 240 at a particular hub 120. In some embodiments, the closest-proximity package 260 may already be on a local delivery route within a geographical area, in which case the particular delivery address may be conveyed to the vehicle transporting the closest-proximity package 260) and a plurality of shipping routes to a corresponding plurality of order delivery locations where the one or more products of the plurality of orders will be delivered (shipping model 410 may be configured to rank the proximity (e.g., by shipping latency) of all the qualifying packages 260 with respect to the particular delivery address, and to choose the closest-proximity package 260. In some embodiments, it is contemplated that a given speculatively shipped package 260 may be selected as a closest-proximity package for a particular order before the given package 260 has reached its original destination geographical area. For example, while in transit to a hub 120 associated with its specified destination geographical area, a speculatively shipped package 260 may pass through, or be predicted to pass through, another hub 120 corresponding to a geographical area from which a customer order was received), the destination shipping hub is common to each of the plurality of shipping routes within the set and is unique from the destination shipping hub of every other set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes (the particular delivery address is assigned to the closest-proximity package 260 (block 612)) (see at least paragraphs 33-36, 59-68);
calculate an aggregated shipping cost for each set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes (shipping model 410 may be configured to identify proximity using factors other than latency, such as geographical distance to the particular delivery address from the current location of a package 260, the number of "hops" (e.g., hubs 120) along the expected route of a package 260, or the expected cost of shipment from the current location to the delivery address. However, it is noted that in some instances, two locations that are geographically proximate may not be temporally proximate, depending on the structure of the shipping network) (see at least paragraphs 59-66);
determine the set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes that corresponds to a lowest aggregated shipping cost (When an order is placed, a closest-proximity package 260 may already be at or close to a hub 120 closest to the delivery address of the order, and thus may be available within, e.g., a day of the order placement. Consequently, the order may be fulfilled by the closest-proximity package 260 as if the order had specified expedited shipping, even though the closest-proximity package 260 may have originally been tendered for non-expedited shipment days prior to the order. Thus, in some embodiments, speculative shipment may be combined with a shipping model 410 to facilitate emulation of higher-cost expedited shipping using lower-cost non-expedited shipping) (see at least paragraphs 64-68);
select the set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes for shipping the plurality of orders that corresponds to the lowest aggregated shipping cost (speculative shipment may be combined with a shipping model 410 to facilitate emulation of higher-cost expedited shipping using lower-cost non-expedited shipping) (see at least paragraphs 64-68);
Spiegel does not specifically teach determining, by a computer processor, a product minimum order quantity based on determining, by the processor, a maximum number of a one or more products capable of fitting within a cargo container. Spremulli teaches determining, by a computer processor, a product minimum order quantity based on determining, by the processor, a maximum number of a one or more products capable of fitting within a cargo container (Order management systems (such as may be provided by an online store, which typically provides many different products for sale to a customer) can leverage knowledge of size weight, and containerization of the products being ordered to offer additional products that will fit in the remaining space in the shipping container) in analogous art of utilizing empty shipping container space for the purposes of: ‘The list of items that are available for ordering (which is then filtered to determine which item(s) can fit in the remaining space in the shipping container and may be offered to the customer) could simply be a list of every item offered for sale by the online store” (see at least paragraphs 2, 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include utilizing empty shipping container space as a selling opportunity as taught by Spremulli in the system of Spiegel, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With regard to Claim 28, Spiegel teaches wherein the product purchase price is the same as the product input price (see at least paragraph 73).
With regard to Claim 29, Spiegel teaches wherein the product input information comprises a product description, a product origin location, a distribution region, a distribution time limit, and a shipping price (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 73).
With regard to Claims 30, 45, Spiegel teaches wherein the controller comprises a purchase agreement generating component configured to generate a purchase agreement between a buyer of the plurality of buyers and the one or more distributors (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 77);
the communication component is configured to send for display in the buyer interface the purchase agreement for acceptance by the buyer (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 66).
With regard to Claims 31, 46, Spiegel teaches wherein the order aggregator component is configured to receive from a buyer of the plurality of buyers via the buyer interface the order delivery location of the buyer and a payment information of the buyer (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 66).
With regard to Claims 32, 47, Spiegel teaches comprising a printing device 1n communication with the controller, the order fulfillment component configured to generate a plurality of shipping labels based on the set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes that corresponds to the lowest aggregated shipping cost, and to send to the printing device the shipping labels for printing (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 43).
With regard to Claims 33, 48, Spiegel does not specifically teach wherein the communication component is configured to receive a size of a cargo container for the one or more products, and is configured to calculate the product minimum order quantity based on the size of the cargo container and at least some of the product input information. Spremulli teaches wherein the communication component is configured to receive a size of a cargo container for the one or more products, and is configured to calculate the product minimum order quantity based on the size of the cargo container and at least some of the product input information (Order management systems (such as may be provided by an online store, which typically provides many different products for sale to a customer) can leverage knowledge of size weight, and containerization of the products being ordered to offer additional products that will fit in the remaining space in the shipping container) in analogous art of utilizing empty shipping container space for the purposes of: ‘The list of items that are available for ordering (which is then filtered to determine which item(s) can fit in the remaining space in the shipping container and may be offered to the customer) could simply be a list of every item offered for sale by the online store” (see at least paragraphs 2, 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include utilizing empty shipping container space as a selling opportunity as taught by Spremulli in the system of Spiegel, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With regard to Claims 34, 49, 60, Spiegel teaches wherein the order fulfilment component is configured to calculate the aggregated shipping cost for each set of the plurality of sets of shipping routes for a shipment of the cargo container for containing the one or more products to each destination shipping hub and a shipment of each of the one or more products from the destination shipping hub to the plurality of order delivery locations (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 73).
With regard to Claims 35, 50, Spiegel teaches wherein the order fulfillment component is configured to group orders for packing in the cargo container by location such that orders having an order delivery location, of the plurality of order delivery locations, within a geographically adjacent distance are grouped together (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 45).
With regard to Claims 36, 51, Spiegel teaches wherein the communication component is configured to send for display in the buyer interface a distribution time limit for a product of the one or more products and to automatically remove the product output information from the buyer interface upon expiration of the distribution time limit in response to the product minimum order quantity of the one or more products not being ordered within the distribution time limit (see at least paragraphs 39, 48).
With regard to Claims 37, 52, Spiegel teaches wherein the communication component is further configured to send for display a quantity of the plurality of orders received relative to the product minimum order quantity (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 73).
With regard to Claims 40, 55, Spiegel teaches wherein the one or more products is a plurality of products (see at least paragraphs 22-28);
the communication component is configured to receive the product input information for the plurality of products and to send for display the product output information for the plurality of products (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 101);
the order aggregator component is configured to receive the plurality of orders for the plurality of products from the plurality of buyers through the buyer interface (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 101).
With regard to Claims 41, 56, Spiegel teaches wherein the one or more distributors is a plurality of distributors, and the communication component is configured to receive from the plurality of distributors the product input information for one or more of the plurality of products (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39.
With regard to Claims 42, 57, Spiegel teaches wherein the one or more distributors is a plurality of distributors, and wherein the communication component is configured to receive from the plurality of distributors the product input information for the one or more products (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39.
With regard to Claim 43, 58, Spiegel teaches wherein the controller comprises a distributor interface for inputting the product input information (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 101).
With regard to Claim 61, Spiegel teaches comprising calculating the product purchase price based on a base product price and a shipping cost associated with the selected set of shipping routes for shipping the plurality of orders that corresponds to the lowest aggregated shipping cost (see at least paragraphs 22-28, 36-39, 101).
Claims 38, 39, 53, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel in view of Spremulli as seen in above Claims 27-37, 40-52, and 55-61 and further in view of Kuelbs et al. (Kuelbs) (US 2005/0283406).
With regard to Claims 38, 53, Spiegel in view of Spremulli do not specifically teach wherein the order fulfillment component is configured to automatically generate a one or more customs documents for each of the plurality of orders based on a buyer location associated with each of the plurality of orders. Kuelbs teaches wherein the order fulfillment component is configured to automatically generate a one or more customs documents (processed for clearance though [sic] customs; appropriate customs documents will be prepared) for each of the ordered products based on the buyer location information (a plurality of shipping actions are under the control of the producer include packaging step 91, labeling step 93, sorting step 95, "containerizing" step 97 and the determination of shipping segments 1 through N (which will be described in detail below). Collectively, these producer-controlled shipping actions represent a form of shipment override 101 which is superimposed upon the ordinary packing, labeling, containerizing, and shipping actions of third-party commercial shippers in the geographic region of the destination of the nonperishable consumer goods) in analogous art of manufacturing, selling, and distributing products for the purposes of: “to provide a method of packaging and delivering goods which reduces significantly shipping and handling costs by allowing the manufacturer to take responsibility for certain packaging, labeling, sorting, and container packaging decisions, which collectively allow the manufacturer to perform many steps or tasks which were previously performed by delivery companies in the geographic location of the consumers of the nonperishable goods. As a consequence, producers will be able to negotiate the lowest possible shipping and handling charges with commercial shippers and delivery services such as FedEx, UPS, USPS, and the like; Also appropriate customs documents will be prepared. Then, in accordance with step number 8, the processed products will transported to an appropriate port and processed for export clearance” (see at least paragraphs 12-17, 55, 69-71).
With regard to Claims 39, 54, Spiegel in view of Spremulli does not specifically teach wherein the order fulfillment component is further configured to automatically generate a specification for inspection of the one or more products. Kuelbs teaches wherein the order fulfillment component is further configured to automatically generate a specification for inspection (clearance) of the one or more products (Also appropriate customs documents will be prepared. Then, in accordance with step number 8, the processed products will transported to an appropriate port and processed for export clearance) in analogous art of manufacturing, selling, and distributing products for the purposes of: “to provide a method of packaging and delivering goods which reduces significantly shipping and handling costs by allowing the manufacturer to take responsibility for certain packaging, labeling, sorting, and container packaging decisions, which collectively allow the manufacturer to perform many steps or tasks which were previously performed by delivery companies in the geographic location of the consumers of the nonperishable goods. As a consequence, producers will be able to negotiate the lowest possible shipping and handling charges with commercial shippers and delivery services such as FedEx, UPS, USPS, and the like; Also appropriate customs documents will be prepared. Then, in accordance with step number 8, the processed products will transported to an appropriate port and processed for export clearance” (see at least paragraphs 12-17, 55, 69-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the method of producing, selling, and distributing articles of manufacture as taught by Kuelbs in the systems of Spremulli and Spiegel, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Saito (US 9,619,775)
Guerin et al. (JP 2016119105A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624