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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 1/27/2026. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-16, 18, 20-24 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-16, 18, 20, 22 have been amended. Claims 23 and 24 have been added.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 22-24 are a system and claims 12-16, 18, 20-21 are a method. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-5, 7, 9-16, 18, 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1 and 12) recite:
A system for regulating an amount of merchandise received at merchandise distribution centers, the system comprising:
a merchandise distribution center configured for storage of a plurality of types of merchandise items in a plurality of storage areas, the merchandise distribution center comprising one or more receiving areas configured to receive delivery vehicles with incoming merchandise for unloading and storage at the merchandise distribution center;
the plurality of types of merchandise items comprising a first set of high priority types of merchandise items and a second set of low priority types of merchandise items;
a plurality of purchase orders for projected incoming merchandise to be delivered in future shipments from a plurality of corresponding vendors supplying shipments of the incoming merchandise to the merchandise distribution center;
each purchase order including one or more types of merchandise items with a projected delivery date at the merchandise distribution center;
a first delivery load to be transported by a first delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center, the first delivery load comprising at least one high priority type of merchandise item and at least one low priority type of merchandise item;
a second delivery load to be delivered by a second delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center, the second delivery load not comprising any high priority types of merchandise items;
a control circuit comprising a processor and memory storing instructions, which, when executed, cause the control circuit to:
receive a merchandise capacity limit for one or more of the storage areas for a future target date at the merchandise distribution center;
determine a projected amount of merchandise present at the one or more storage areas for the future target date based, at least in part, on the plurality of purchase orders;
compare the projected amount of merchandise to the merchandise capacity limit and determine that an insufficient capacity situation for that future target date exists;
receive first and second delivery load information corresponding to the first and second delivery loads to be delivered by the first and second delivery vehicles;
determine the first delivery load as a high priority delivery load based on inclusion of the at least one high priority type of merchandise item;
identify all purchase orders associated with the first and second delivery loads by accessing load group information stored in the memory;
apply an automated filtering process to the purchase orders based on stored priority attributes including vendor priority and merchandise priority, wherein each filtering condition corresponds to a step of excluding purchase orders from delivery date adjustment;
apply, after filtering, an automated prioritization process that calculates a priority ranking for each remaining purchase order using at least one of forecast sales, lost sales, forecast margin, lost margin, and forecast days on hand;
execute an automated delivery date adjustment process that iteratively evaluates, for each projected delivery date, a total order quantity comprising current day quantities, historical quantities, and quantities moved from earlier iterations, compares the total order quantity to the merchandise capacity limit, and adjusts projected delivery dates when doing so reduces a capacity exceedance on a projected delivery date without creating a capacity exceedance on an adjusted delivery date;
and modify purchase orders in the second delivery load to delay delivery to the merchandise distribution center when the filtering, prioritization, and delivery date adjustment processes determine that such modification is permitted for purchase orders in the second delivery load.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for managing the delivery of items based on respective priorities and amending the delivery schedule of the items based on the identified priorities. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities and business relations. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Claim 12 recites parallel claim language and is also rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A system for regulating an amount of merchandise received at merchandise distribution centers, the system comprising:
a merchandise distribution center configured for storage of a plurality of types of merchandise items in a plurality of storage areas, the merchandise distribution center comprising one or more receiving areas configured to receive delivery vehicles with incoming merchandise for unloading and storage at the merchandise distribution center;
load to be transported by a first delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center
load to be delivered by a second delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center,
a control circuit comprising a processor and memory storing instructions, which, when executed, cause the control circuit to:
loads to be delivered by the first and second delivery vehicles;
stored in the memory
The additional elements of a control circuit comprising a processor and memory storing instructions, which, when executed, cause the control circuit to; stored in the memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of A system for regulating an amount of merchandise received at merchandise distribution centers, the system comprising: a merchandise distribution center configured for storage of a plurality of types of merchandise items in a plurality of storage areas, the merchandise distribution center comprising one or more receiving areas configured to receive delivery vehicles with incoming merchandise for unloading and storage at the merchandise distribution center; load to be transported by a first delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center; load to be delivered by a second delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center, loads to be delivered by the first and second delivery vehicles; are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception by receiving the delivery at a merchandise distribution center and the delivery of the loads by the truck. This is considered pre and post solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
The additional elements of A system for regulating an amount of merchandise received at merchandise distribution centers, the system comprising: a merchandise distribution center configured for storage of a plurality of types of merchandise items in a plurality of storage areas, the merchandise distribution center comprising one or more receiving areas configured to receive delivery vehicles with incoming merchandise for unloading and storage at the merchandise distribution center; load to be transported by a first delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center; load to be delivered by a second delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center, loads to be delivered by the first and second delivery vehicles of Step 2A has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification (paragraph 0016, 0025 and Fig. 1) does not provide any indication that merchandise centers with receiving areas for receiving the deliveries is anything other than a generic storage facility for storing items and a generic delivery vehicle for transporting the items.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 and 12 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 12 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 12 recites parallel claim language and is also rejected for the reasons set forth above.
As such, independent claims 1 and 12 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 18, 20-24 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1 and 12 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein if the projected amount of merchandise exceeds the merchandise capacity limit, such that an insufficient capacity situation exists on the future target date, the control circuit to: determine a first group of purchase orders corresponding to a high priority set of vendors determine a second group of purchase orders corresponding to the high priority types of merchandise items: adjust the projected delivery dates at the merchandise distribution center for at least some of the purchase orders not in the first and second groups to one or more deferred dates after the future target date; and transmit the purchase orders in the first and second groups to the corresponding vendors. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein, if the projected amount of merchandise exceeds the merchandise capacity limit, such that an insufficient capacity situation exists on the future target date, the control circuit to: determine a third group of purchase orders corresponding to promotional types of merchandise items; leave unchanged the projected delivery dates at the merchandise distribution center for the third group of purchase orders; and transmit the purchase orders in the third group to the corresponding vendors. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein, if the projected amount of merchandise exceeds the merchandise capacity limit, such that an insufficient capacity situation exists, the control circuit to: determine a fourth group of purchase orders corresponding to types of merchandise items at the merchandise distribution center with on hand amounts below a predetermined minimum threshold; leave unchanged the projected delivery dates at the merchandise distribution center for the fourth group of purchase orders; and transmit the purchase orders in the fourth group to the corresponding vendors. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein, if the projected amount of merchandise exceeds the merchandise capacity limit, such that an insufficient capacity situation exists, the control circuit to: determine a fifth group of high priority purchase orders, as determined by predetermined prioritization rules; leave unchanged the projected delivery dates at the merchandise distribution center for the fifth group of purchase orders; and transmit the purchase orders in the fifth group to the corresponding vendors. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein the prioritization rules are based on a priority score calculation for each purchase order in the fifth group of purchase orders, the priority score calculation based on combining a priority value for each of. total forecast sales for the merchandise items in the purchase order, total lost sales for the merchandise items in the purchase order, total forecast margins for the merchandise items in the purchase order, total lost margins for the merchandise items in the purchase order, and a forecast days on hand for the merchandise item in the purchase order with a minimum forecast days on hand. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites wherein, if the projected amount of merchandise exceeds the merchandise capacity limit, such that an insufficient capacity situation exists, the control circuit to: determine a low priority delivery load where none of the purchase orders in the load have been prioritized as a high priority purchase order such that the projected delivery dates of all of the purchase orders may be deferred; and adjust the projected delivery dates of all of the purchase orders to the same projected delivery date. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites wherein each projected delivery date is determined by lead time required for each vendor and comprises order processing time and delivery transit time to the merchandise distribution center. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites wherein the merchandise capacity limit is determined, at least in part, by labor capacity, the labor capacity used to calculate a maximum number of merchandise cases that can be handled by individuals at the merchandise distribution center. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 23 recites wherein the control circuit is to: detect missing merchandise data entries for a purchase order and, in response, maintain the projected delivery date for that purchase order without applying filtering, prioritization, or delivery date adjustment. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 24 recites wherein the control circuit is to: identify a load group associated with a purchase order and, when adjusting the projected delivery date of that purchase order, set a common adjusted projected delivery date for all other purchase orders in the same load group. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 13-16, 18 and 20-22 recite parallel claim language and therefore are also rejected for the reasons set forth above. Therefore claims 1-5, 7, 9-16, 18, 20-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-16, 18, 20-24 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the additional claimed features of “a first delivery load to be transported by a first delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center, the first delivery load comprising at least one high priority type of merchandise item and at least one low priority type of merchandise item; a second delivery load to be delivered by a second delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center, the second delivery load not comprising any high priority types of merchandise items; receive first and second delivery load information corresponding to the first and second delivery loads to be delivered by the first and second delivery vehicles; determine the first delivery load as a high priority delivery load based on inclusion of the at least one high priority type of merchandise item that has been prioritized as a high priority purchase order with a projected delivery date that is not to be deferred; identify all purchase orders in the high priority delivery load and select for delivery on the future target date, including purchase orders corresponding to low priority types of merchandise items in the first delivery load; and modify purchase orders in the second delivery load to delay delivery to the merchandise distribution center.”
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Hance US 10822170- discloses the modification of a delivery based on an event. For example, in Col. 7 lines 20-35, an event has occurred where the pallets of bottled water need to be re-routed to a different location. The supply chain coordinator can re-route or change the priority of the item based on the event data to send the item to the new location. Col. 13 lines 55-67 details another scenario “Warehouse and supply-chain coordinator 100 determines that, because of event 320, warehouse/fulfillment center 156 has a higher priority for goods G300 than warehouse/distribution center 150. Subsequently, warehouse and supply-chain coordinator 100 sends reroute message 330 to reroute truck 142 to deliver goods G300 to warehouse/fulfillment center 156. Warehouse and supply-chain coordinator 100 sends route message 340 to truck 144 to route the truck to warehouse 140 to pick up goods G300 and deliver goods G300 to warehouse/distribution center 150.” However, the reference does not disclose loaded items for delivery with different priorities and delaying or not delaying the arrival of those items based on the mixed priorities of the items set to arrive at the merchandise distribution center as claimed in the claimed invention.
Malitski US8244645 discloses determining the optimal shipping method for an order. Spit logic is used to determine the most efficient manner for transporting an order from a customer to their location. As shown in Figure 10. “FIG. 10 is a schematic diagram of four different possible split scenarios according to one embodiment of the invention. The FU split number is shown as the four digit extension following 123. In this the figure, it is assumed that a truck holds up to four pallets and one pallet is the rounding quantity, e.g., no partial pallets are permitted on a truck. One strategy is not permitting items split. As discussed above, this precludes consolidation of different items for a sales order (less than all) onto a single vehicle. This results in some inefficiency as five trucks are required to carry sixteen pallets. Using a consolidate with no balancing strategy improves the inefficiency over a no split system, but may increase the risk of out of stock conditions where all transportation is not concurrent. Consolidate without weighted balancing mixes the products among deliveries, but may not result in the optimal delivery of goods as needed. Consolidate weighted balancing weights the delivery based on the number of user product ordered so that the higher demand items are likely to be delivered earlier in a transportation schedule. Some embodiments may always use one split strategy, other embodiments permit different split strategies to be applied on a characteristic combination basis, such as customer/location. However, the reference does not disclose loaded items for delivery with different priorities and delaying or not delaying the arrival of those items based on the mixed priorities of the items set to arrive at the merchandise distribution center as claimed in the claimed invention.
Milne US 20070239299 discloses in [0074] FIG. 9 a method to calculate shipments between locations such that planned shipments carry multiple due dates and priorities and providing corresponding multiple shipping dates with associated priorities. However, the determination is made and the schedule planned prior to shipping and does not disclose receive first and second delivery load information corresponding to the first and second delivery loads to be delivered by the first and second delivery vehicles; determine the first delivery load as a high priority delivery load based on inclusion of the at least one high priority type of merchandise item that has been prioritized as a high priority purchase order with a projected delivery date that is not to be deferred; identify all purchase orders in the high priority delivery load and select for delivery on the future target date, including purchase orders corresponding to low priority types of merchandise items in the first delivery load; and modify purchase orders in the second delivery load to delay delivery to the merchandise distribution center.” of the claimed invention.
NPL: “A novel framework and effective scheduling of cross-docking center for multi-objective truck Scheduling Problem” discloses a cross-docking technique used for more efficient scheduling of vehicles. Cross-Docking Centre (CDC) acts as a temporary distribution center that undergoes three important functions i.e., the goods from inbound trucks are continuously sorted, consolidated and then loaded onto outbound trucks for delivery to the customers.(Abstract)
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 (and parallel claim 12) in combination that overcome the prior art are:
a first delivery load to be transported by a first delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center, the first delivery load comprising at least one high priority type of merchandise item and at least one low priority type of merchandise item;
a second delivery load to be delivered by a second delivery vehicle to the merchandise distribution center, the second delivery load not comprising any high priority types of merchandise items;
receive first and second delivery load information corresponding to the first and second delivery loads to be delivered by the first and second delivery vehicles; determine the first delivery load as a high priority delivery load based on inclusion of the at least one high priority type of merchandise item that has been prioritized as a high priority purchase order with a projected delivery date that is not to be deferred;
identify all purchase orders associated with the first and second delivery loads by accessing load group information stored in the memory;
modify purchase orders in the second delivery load to delay delivery to the merchandise distribution center when the filtering, prioritization, and delivery date adjustment processes determine that such modification is permitted for purchase orders in the second delivery load.
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually some of the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Still such, as discussed above, some features remain untaught or not anticipated by prior art. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Dependent claims are also free of prior art as they depend on claims 1 and 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner first asserts the claims have been updated above to address the claims as amended.
With respect to the argument “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea”, applicant argues the claims cannot be practically performed by the human mind and therefore are not a mental process. The examiner did not assert in the rejection that the claims were a mental process, but rather directed to the enumerated grouping of “method of organizing human activity”. The test and analysis for these two enumerated groups are different and therefore the examiner does not find the remarks persuasive. Further, the examiner has not characterized the claims as falling into the enumerated grouping of mathematical calculations, and therefore finds the remarks directed to this characterization moot.
With respect to the remarks directed to the comparison of the instant claimed invention to Desjardins, the examiner asserts that at most the improvement of the claimed invention lies in the abstract idea itself. Application states the operations improve how a distribution center manages capacity through machine implemented operations of including automated filtering, quantitative prioritization, and an iterative delivery date adjustment algorithm. The asserted improvement and the manner in which the improvement occurs is part of the abstract idea (as shown in the rejection above). At most the business process is improved, but the technology (for example AI or the computer function itself as in Desjardins) here is not improved.
With respect to the remarks directed to the USPTO memo, the examiner asserts the claimed invention does not recite a technical solution to a technical problem, but rather a business solution to a business problem rooted in the abstract idea, when viewed alone or in combination. The additional elements that are identified in the analysis above are merely tangential to the abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exception into the practical application (i.e. the business process is merely carried out by the additional elements). This also applies to the newly added claims 23 and 24.
For at least these reasons the claims are rejected under 35 USC 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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 2/23/2026