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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of the Claims
claims 1, 3-8, 10-13-15 and 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are in independent form.
claims 1-20 remain pending.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s amendments do not appear to be significantly more than an abstract idea. Applicant appears to have added additional steps to the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments are addressed by the newly cited art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1,8,15 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of consolidating package shipments which is a mental process. Other than reciting devices nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the devices the limitations on receiving object request, selecting independent environment based on quantity and proximity, identify routes, determine routes, transmit route, receive and consolidate objects for distribution is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally or manually but for the recitation of generic computer elements. The limitations of consolidating a package are considered by the examiner to be extra solution activity. Applicant has not invented of putting things together for delivery. The addition of insignificant activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (see MPEP 2106.05 g; “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Insignificant application: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and”). If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to consolidating package shipments stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions (a fundamental economic practice). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the additional elements of consolidating a package were considered by the examiner to be extra solution activity above. The addition of insignificant activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (see MPEP 2106.05 g; see also cited NPL e.g. Zhang). The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the package consolidating steps. The subject matter of claims 2/9/16 (time interval), 3/10/17 (selected routes based on time interval), 4/11/18 (generate routes using trained ML), 5/12/19 (transmit object request and time interval), 6 /13(transmit indication object has been transmitted), 7/14/20 (transmit to distribution device third object information) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. Although claims 4/11/18 recite machine learning, this is cited at a high level and does not appear to recite a technological improvement to machine learning so much as applying the abstract idea to a technological environment. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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 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.
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 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 of this title, 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 1,2,3,5,6, ,9,10,12,13,15,16,17,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirth US20030171962A1 in view of Ripert 10818186 in view of Ran 6317686 in view of Kumar 10740715
Regarding Claim 1
Receiving an object request associated with a distribution device, wherein the object request includes an identification of a first set of objects
Hirth is directed to a system for fulfilling a customer order. (Hirth, abstract, “Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, implementing and using techniques for coordinating the fulfillment of an outbound fulfillment order for one or more items between a first party and a second party. The first party places a sales order for the one or more items. The second party receives the sales order for the one or more items is received. A first set of rules is used to split the sales order into one or more work packages necessary to fulfill the order and produce the one or more items. A second set of rules is used to assign the work packages to one or more partners.”; para 0010, “Goods can be consolidated by obtaining goods from each of the partners to which a work package is assigned. The consolidated goods can be shipped to the first party. A notification can be received from one or more of the partners, the notification including one is or more of a shipping notification and a transport notification”; para 0071, “[0071] In the stock transfer or consolidation mode, the objective of the operation is to create one delivery per customer. This mode also takes into account a merge in transit at a consolidation point. For example, goods from multiple internal and external partners can be shipped to a consolidation point and then shipped as a single shipment to the customer. The operator of the consolidation point also can be instructed in the manner of packing and preparing the handling units for the cross-docking situation.”)
selecting one or more independent environments from a set of independent environments
associated with the first set of objects, wherein the one or more independent environments are
selected based on a quantity of the first set of objects located at the one or more independent
environments …
(Hirth, para 0040, “The work packages can be based on, for example, rules such as location of the production of the product, location of the parts or goods used to make the product, and steps in the production process relating to different operations. Thus, a first work package can be for procuring raw materials, a second work package can be for shaping or forming the raw materials, a third work package can be for assembling the shaped materials into a final product, and the fourth work package can be for shipping the product. In general, the work packages are based on rules relating to the company's production process.”; para 0083, “[0083] The ATP service is used to check the availability of an order quantity of a product for supplying the product by a certain date. To meet the date and quantity requirements, the ATP service is able to adjust various parameters of a logistics process, including changing the steps of a logistics process, changing the partners/locations, changing the schedules, and changing the products. The ATP service is connected to one or more of the programs, described below, that provide: (1) scheduling of the processes (for example, to determine the actual date of fulfillment), and (2) product selection or substitution, partner/location selection, capable to promise (CTP) service, production planning and scheduling, planning in general (for example, forecasts, product allocations) and alert handling (for example, if there is no confirmation for a request).”)
, and wherein the independent environments are independent and distinct from the distribution device and each other;
(Hirth, para 0137, “[0137] The distributed order management scenario 600 is useful for typical business scenarios that include a business process flow that consists of sequentially-linked processes, runs through several internal departments 620 of an enterprise, and involves one or more external partners 625 from external business enterprises.”)
receiving the first set of objects, wherein when the first set of objects are received at the location associated with the distribution device, the first set of objects are consolidated with a second set of objects, and wherein the first set of objects and the second set of objects form a package… ; and
facilitating distribution of the package.
(Hirth, para 0071, “[0071] In the stock transfer or consolidation mode, the objective of the operation is to create one delivery per customer. This mode also takes into account a merge in transit at a consolidation point. For example, goods from multiple internal and external partners can be shipped to a consolidation point and then shipped as a single shipment to the customer. The operator of the consolidation point also can be instructed in the manner of packing and preparing the handling units for the cross-docking situation.”)
Hirth does not explicitly disclose
identifying, based on a topology algorithm, one or more dynamic routes define a path over which the set of objects will travel from the one or more environments locations …
Ripert is directed to an online shopping system that allocates orders among agents. (Ripert, abstract, “An online shopping concierge system identifies a set of delivery orders and a set of delivery agents associated with a location. The system allocates the orders among the agents, each agent being allocated at least one order.”) Ripert discloses splitting an order amongst different merchants to fulfill the order. (Ripert, col.6,ln.66-col.7,ln.3, “In some embodiments, a single delivery order can be split into multiple orders, e.g., if the items cannot be fulfilled at a single retailer. An exemplary process for clustering deliveries is described in greater detail with respect to FIG. 6.”). Ripert discloses selecting valid routes from possible routes between a warehouse and delivery location. (Ripert, col16,lns.28-col.17,ln.7, “The shopper management engine 210 generates warehouse-delivery pairs. Each warehouse-delivery pair associates an order with a plausible warehouse for fulfilling that order. The plausible warehouses for an order can be determined based on the location of the warehouse relative to the order's delivery address and the inventory or stock of the warehouse. In sonic embodiments, the customer 104 may select a preferred warehouse or a preferred retailer chain. If multiple plausible warehouses are determined, the shopper management engine 210 may determine a subset of the plausible warehouses for forming the delivery-warehouse pairs. For example, the shopper management engine 210 may select a subset of plausible warehouses based on, e.g., the location of the warehouse relative to the delivery address, a likelihood of the items being in stock at the time of pickup (e.g., based on current inventory of the warehouse, inventory trends of the warehouse, etc.), pricing at the warehouse, warehouse preference, or other factors. In some embodiments, if an order cannot be fulfilled at a single warehouse, the order may be divided into order portions, each of which is associated with a different warehouse. (60) After generating the pairs, the shopper management engine 210 merges the pairs 604 to form sets of delivery-warehouse pairs. The shopper management engine 210 can control the number of combinations by only combining a delivery-warehouse pair with another sufficiently close delivery-warehouse pair (e.g., combine a delivery-warehouse pair with one of the n closest deliveries from the same warehouse). In one embodiment, the shopper management engine 210 pairs one delivery with one warehouse, identifies a second delivery based on the proximity between the second delivery order's delivery location and the first order's delivery location, and then pairs the second delivery order with the first delivery order. After forming the merged sets, the shopper management engine 210 applies constraints 606 to the merged sets of delivery warehouse pairs to remove any invalid routes. For example, according to one constraint, the shopper management engine 210 may remove routes that include delivery orders with delivery windows that are too far away from each other (e.g., a group that includes one order due at 1-2 pm followed by an order due at 4-5 pm could be considered invalid, because the first order would be delivered late, or the second order delivered early). According to another constraint, the shopper management engine 210 may keep only one permutation for a given combination of orders. For example, a combination of three delivery orders D1, D2, and D3 has six permutations: [D1, D2, D3], [D1, D3, D2], [D2, D1, D3], [D2, D3, D1], [D3, D2, D1], and [D3, D1, D2]. The permutations may be evaluated based on one or more factors, e.g., shortest total travel time, shortest total distance, certainty to delivery orders within their delivery windows, etc. Under this constraint, the shopper management engine 210 evaluates the one or more factors to select the best permutation, and removes the other permutations from the valid routes. After determining the valid routes, the shopper management engine 210 allocates 608 delivery orders to their respective warehouses.”)
generating a specification for the set of dynamic routes, wherein a specification includes an identification of a device configured to facilitate a transmission of objects … along a dynamic route
facilitating a transmission to the device, wherein the transmission includes an identification of a dynamic route from the set of dynamic routes,
(Ripert, col.7, lns.45-55, “If the full service model is selected, the shopper management engine 210 creates 410 the full service route. The full service route describes the tasks assigned to the shopper 108, e.g., proceed to an assigned retailer 110, pick the items in the order, purchase the items, and deliver the items to an address. The shopper management engine 210 may also estimate the time to complete the full service route and notes any constraints on the route, e.g., age restrictions. After creating 410 the route, the shopper management engine 210 assigns 412 an appropriate shopper to the route.”; col.6lns.8-43, “FIG. 3B is a diagram of the shopper mobile application (SMA) 112, according to one embodiment. The SMA 112 includes a barcode scanning module 320 which allows a shopper 108 to scan an item at a retailer 110 (such as a can of soup on the shelf at a grocery store). The barcode scanning module 320 may also include an interface which allows the shopper 108 to manually enter information describing an item (such as its serial number, SKU, quantity and/or weight) if a barcode is not available to be scanned. SMA 112 also includes a basket manager 322 maintains a running record of items collected by the shopper 108 for purchase at a retailer 110. This running record of items is commonly known as a “basket”. In one embodiment, the barcode scanning module 320 transmits information describing each item (such as its cost, quantity, weight, etc.) to the basket manager 322, which updates its basket accordingly. The SMA 112 also includes a system communication interface 324 which interacts with the online shopping concierge system 102. For example, the system communication interface 324 receives an order from the system 102 and transmits the contents of a basket of items to the system 102. The SMA 112 also includes an image encoder 326 which encodes the contents of a basket into an image. For example, the image encoder 326 may encode a basket of goods (with an identification of each item) into a QR code which can then he scanned by an employee of the retailer 110 at check-out. In some embodiments, the SMA 11.2 also includes a navigation module 328 that provides direction to a retailer 110 and to customer delivery locations. The navigation module 328 may receive or detect the current location of the user operating the SMA 112. In some embodiments, the SMA 112 may not have a navigation module 328, and instead interacts with a separate navigation application available on the same device as the SMA 112.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Hirth with the routing of Ripert with the motivation of assigning tasks to agents. Id.
Hirth does not explicitly disclose
determining a set of dynamic routes based on one or more real time-environmental factors;
Ran is directed to a traffic information system. (Ran, abstract, “A traffic information system for predicting travel times utilizes Internet based collecting and disseminating of information. The system accounts for vehicle type, driver specific disposition, and its predictions of future traffic account for the effects of predictable events, particularly weather, on traffic patterns.”) Ran discloses alternative routes may be offered based on traffic conditions. (Ran, col.22,lns.50-60, “As shown in FIG. 6, the address-to-address routing and alert 12 provide three types of information: 1) traffic prediction and prediction confidence probability for user-defined routes 69; 2) routing, departure time, arrival time, destination recommendations and prediction confidence probability based on route choice criteria of major roads, minimum time, minimum cost, alternative routes 610; and 3) alert for incident, construction, event, abnormal travel times, and abnormal departure time/arrival times for user-specified routes and recommended routes 611.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Hirth and Ripert with the traffic information of Ran with the motivation of delivering goods. Id.
Hirth does not explicitly disclose
wherein a location of the set of independent environments is a predetermined distance from the distribution device
Kumar is directed to a system for processing combined orders at multiple merchants. (Kumar, abstract). Kumar discloses selecting a courier with a device to pick up the orders based on proximity. (Kumar, col.24,lns.10-14, “Based on the indicated locations, the computing device may select a particular courier to which to assign the order, so as to minimize courier travel time to the pickup location.”)
at the location associated with the distribution device
to a location associated with the distribution device
Kumar discloses that the courier with device may receive and assemble elements of the orders. (Kumar, col.12,lns.17-45, “(50) As mentioned above, in some examples a combined order may be an order in which all of the items included in the order are ordered from the same merchant. Alternatively, in other examples, a combined order may be created by ordering from two or more merchants within a threshold distance of each other, e.g., such that the courier can pick up both orders with only several minutes of additional time. As still another alternative, the service provider may determine that a combined order can be created based on a second merchant's pickup location being within a threshold distance of a route that will be traveled by the courier from a first merchant to the delivery location. Accordingly, in some examples, the order processing module 140 may schedule multiple pickups and deliveries with a single courier. For example, a first buyer may select a first merchant with which to place an order.”)
Regarding claim 2, Hirth, Ripert, ran and Kumar disclose the method of claim 1.
Hirth does not explicitly disclose
wherein the object request further includes a time interval within which the package is to be transmitted to or received by an end user.
(Ripert, col.4,lns.13-16, “The order also specifies the location to which the goods are to be delivered, and a time window during which the goods should be delivered.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Hirth and Hance with the timing of Ripert with the motivation of delivering goods. Id.
Regarding claim 3, Hirth, Ripert, ran and Kumar disclose the method of claim 1.
Hirth does not explicitly disclose
wherein the set of dynamic routes are selected based on a time interval within which the first set of objects are to be received at the location associated with the distribution device.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Kumar.
Regarding claim 5, Hirth, Ripert, Ran and Kumar disclose the method of claim 1.
transmitting a communication to a device associated with an independent environment of at least one object of the first set of objects, the communication including an identifier associated with the object request and a time interval within which the at least one object is to be prepared for transmission location associated with the distribution device.
(Hirth, summary, “The sales order can be spli into one or more work packages based on the locations of goods necessary to fulfill the sales order. The sales order can be split into one or more work packages based on the locations at which the sales order is to be fulfilled. The sales order can be split into one or more work packages based on the locations of the partners necessary to fulfill the sales order. The sales order can be split into one or more work packages,having information for performing work tasks associated with the work packages. The sales order can be split into one or more work packages having estimates of the time necessary to perform work tasks associated with the work packages.”; “para 0011, “One or more of the first and second parties can be an external business partner. One or more of the external business partners can be a logistics service provider. The first and second parties can be internal partners.”; Hirth para 0049, “The work packages include the information necessary to perform the actual work on time. For example, the work package can include estimates of the time necessary to perform each work task such that the partners will know when to start the work so that the work is completed on time.”)
Regarding claim 6, Hirth, Ripert, ran and Kumar disclose the method of claim 1.
transmitting a communication to the distribution device indicating that at least one object of the set of objects has been to the location associated with the distribution device.
(Hirth, para 0010, “[0010] Goods can be consolidated by obtaining goods from each of the partners to which a work package is assigned. The consolidated goods can be shipped to the first party. A notification can be received from one or more of the partners, the notification including one is or more of a shipping notification and a transport notification.”)
Regarding Claims, 8,9,10,12,13,15,16,17,19
See prior art rejections of claims 1,2,3,5,6,1,2,3,5
Claims 4,11,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirth US20030171962A1 in view of Ripert 10818186 in view of Ran 6317686 in view of Kumar 10740715 in view of Hance US20190066041A1
Regarding claim 4, Hirth, Ripert, Ran and Kumar the method of claim 1.
Hirth does not explicitly disclose
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the set of dynamic routes are generated by a machine-learning model trained from a set of historical object requests.
Hance is directed to a system for routing delivery vehicles. (Hance, abstract). Hance discloses that routes may be chosen based on travel times predicted using machine learning. (Hance, para 0164-65, “[[0164] Referring back to FIG. 17, method 1700 may further include determining that the delivery vehicle is expected to reach the first location by the first deadline after traveling on the second route and picking up the cargo from the automated warehouse. In particular, the projected availability time determined for the cargo to be ready for pickup at the automated warehouse may be used to predict how long it will take the delivery vehicle to stop at the automated warehouse and ultimately reach the first location. More specifically, expected travel time for the delivery vehicle along the second route (given current traffic conditions) and the expected wait time for the delivery vehicle at the automated warehouse (given the projected availability time for the cargo) may be added to predict when the vehicle will reach the first location. This predicted arrival time at the first location may be compared to the first deadline to determine whether to reroute the delivery vehicle. If the predicted arrival time is earlier than the first deadline (possibly with some buffer included), the delivery vehicle may be rerouted to the second route. [0165] In some examples, to determine the predicted arrival time of a delivery vehicle at an automated warehouse, a machine learning model may be used. The model may be trained based on travel times taken by delivery vehicles depending on various factors, including vehicle type, location, specific truck driver, dispatching area, and weather conditions. The model may then take a current set of input data (e.g., vehicle type, driver, location, weather) and produce an estimated ETA. The model may allow for more precise prediction of the impact of truck rerouting before a control system makes a decision to reroute a given truck.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Hirth, Ripert, Ran and Kumar with the machine learning of Hance with the motivation of delivering goods. Id.
Regarding Claims, 11,18
See prior art rejections of claims 4,4
Claims 7,14,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirth US20030171962A1 in view of Ripert 10818186 in view of Ran in view of Kumar in view of Koneri 20190259043
Regarding claim 7, Hirth, Ripert, ran and Kumar disclose the method of claim 1.
Hirth does not explicitly disclose
receiving, from a device associated with a particular source location, an object manifest corresponding to a third one or more objects, the object manifest including object characteristics corresponding to the third one or more objects, wherein the object characteristics include one or more of a quantity of each object of the third one or more objects stored by the particular source location or a value of each object of the third one or more objects; and transmitting, to the distribution device, the object manifest, wherein upon receiving the object manifest, the distribution is configured to transmit subsequent object requests that include to objects identified by the object manifest.
Koneri is directed to a supply chain management system. (Koneri, abstract). Koneri discloses that an inventory tracking engine could be updated with inventory information from various other locations. (Koneri, para 0104, “[0104] At operation 504, the inventory positions of the plurality of items at each of the retail locations and distribution locations are monitored. In some embodiments, the inventory positions are monitored by the inventory tracking engine 302. The inventory tracking engine 302 receives updates on inventory positions from the transportation management system 206 and the warehouse management engine 308 as items flows through the supply chain. Changes are recorded in the inventory data store 314.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Hirth, Ripert and Hance with the object manifests of Koneri with the motivation of delivering goods. Id.
Regarding Claims, 14,20
See prior art rejections of claims 7
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights