DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 08/08/2025.
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 . 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 05/08/2025. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 08/08/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,449,822 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Regarding the rejection over U.S. Patent No. 11,449,822
Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 is overcome and thus, has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection over U.S. Patent No. 11,783,279
Applicant did not file a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained.
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 08/08/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation of “wherein the input zip code is determined using at least one of a tracking cookie for a user using a website or geo-sniffing a current session of the user using the website” is not part of the abstract idea and that the limitation allows the user to not enter the zip code themselves and thus use the technology in a meaningful way that is not generally linking the shipping process to a technological environment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When considered as an additional element, the limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source and may also be considered as a field of use limitation as the data gathering is limited to a particular data source (“tracking cookie” or “geo-sniffing a current session”).
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been maintained.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner relies upon new reference Leff to teach the limitation of “wherein the input zip code is determined using at least one of a tracking cookie for a user using a website or geo-sniffing a current session of the user using the website”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,783,279 in view of Ackerman et al. (US9959562) in view of Mueller et al. (US2017/0124511) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2017/0278062).
US Patent No. 11,783,279 Claim 1 and Claim 7 teaches the limitations of “determining a zip code of a user…wherein determining the zip code of the user comprises determining the zip code of the user through at least one of using tracking cookies for the user using the website or geo-sniffing a current session of the user using the website”; “determining a shipping speed to display to the user based on…(b) the list of fulfillment nodes that can currently deliver to the zip code of the user within the first shipping speed”; and “wherein the list of the fulfillment nodes that can currently deliver to the zip code of the user within the first shipping speed is generated using a reverse mapping of respective lists of zip codes to which each of the fulfillment nodes can deliver via ground shipping within the first shipping speed”.
The patent does not teach explicitly teach “generating”, “transforming”, “receiving”, “in response to the request”, and “determining, in real-time while a webpage for an item loads”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the teaching, citations, and motivations for each limitation are found below in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the patent with Ackerman with the motivation of increasing efficiency. See Col. 1 Lines 16-31 “However, managing local item fulfillment on a national scale is difficult, especially when the item fulfillment is managed by a top level market and/or a local market in a market hierarchy. Network content may be provided for top level or local electronic marketplaces with differing delivery times, costs, or regulatory environments. Additionally, it may be difficult to meet each user's desires and expectations with respect to receiving the item. Further, many items that are not local to the user may be difficult to ship within an expedited time frame. Thus, many providers in top level markets may shy away from offering the local items online and only allow the users to purchase the items through brick and mortar stores, like grocery stores. These item providers would lose the profit that they would have gotten from providing these items to users, and users would lose the convenience of ordering these local items through web pages and receiving the items quickly.”
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,783,279 in view of Ackerman et al. (US9959562) in view of Mueller et al. (US2017/0124511) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2017/0278062) as applied to independent claim 1 and claim 11, further in view of Chowdhry et al. (US2017/0255903).
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the teaching, citations, and motivations for the limitations of claims 6-8 and 16-18 are found below in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,783,279 in view of Ackerman et al. (US9959562) in view of Mueller et al. (US2017/0124511) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2017/0278062) as applied to independent claim 1 and claim 11, further in view of Deshpande et al. (US2017/0206500) in view of Chen et al. (US2014/0258296).
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the teaching, citations, and motivations for the limitations of claims 9-10 and 19-20 are found below in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 and Claim 11 recites the limitations of:
generating, …, respective lists of zip codes that fulfillment nodes in a fulfillment network can deliver to via ground shipping within a first shipping time period, based at least in part on preliminary eligibility information and an evaluation of current factors;
transforming, …, the respective lists of zip codes to generate a mapping from each zip code in the respective lists of zip codes to a respective list of the fulfillment nodes that can deliver via ground shipping to each zip code within the first shipping time period;
receiving a request comprising an input zip code and an input shipping time period;
in response to the request, generating a response comprising a list of the fulfillment nodes based on the mapping, such that each fulfillment node in the list of the fulfillment nodes can deliver to the input zip code via ground shipping within the input shipping time period; and
determining, in real-time while a webpage for an item loads, a shipping speed to display to a user for the item based at least in part on the list of the fulfillment nodes
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (“managing personal behavior or relations or interactions between people” or “commercial interactions” such as or business relations).
Specifically, commercial interactions between a customer who provides their zip code and preferred shipping time period for delivery of an item and fulfillment nodes in a fulfillment network who can deliver the item to the customer in light of specification paragraph 39-40 “The users are typically able to choose different shipping speeds for their orders as part of a service level agreement with the provider of the website…The cost of shipping an item can vary depending on various factors, such as the location from which the item is to be shipped, the location to which the item is to be shipped, the mode of shipment”.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “generating”, “transforming”, and “in response” fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III.
Specifically, “generating” encompasses a user, given preliminary eligibility information and current factors, evaluating the information and factors to derive lists of zip codes that fulfillment nodes can deliver to via ground shipping within a first shipping time period. “Transforming” encompasses the user mapping each zip code in the lists of zip codes to the list of fulfillment nodes derived earlier. “In response” encompasses the user (in response to receiving a customer’s zip code and shipping time period) creating a list of fulfillment nodes based on the previous mapping such that each fulfillment node can deliver to the customer’s zip code via ground shipping within the customer’s given shipping time period. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 and Claim 11 recite one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, separate instances of a worker system, and an aggregator system.
The additional elements of one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, separate instances of a worker system, and an aggregator system are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Additionally, a worker system and an aggregator system may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (separate instances of a worker system and an aggregator system) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
The independent claims also recite “wherein the input zip code is determined using at least one of a tracking cookie for a user using a website or geo-sniffing a current session of the user using the website” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source and may also be considered as a field of use limitation as the data gathering is limited to a particular data source (“tracking cookie” or “geo-sniffing a current session”).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, whether individually or viewed in an ordered combination, because mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, extra solution activity, and field of use do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Again, the worker system and the aggregator system may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (separate instances of a worker system and an aggregator system) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
The limitation of “wherein the input zip code is determined using at least one of a tracking cookie for a user using a website or geo-sniffing a current session of the user using the website” may also be considered as a field of use limitation as the data gathering is limited to a particular data source (“tracking cookie” or “geo-sniffing a current session”).
When considered as insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source and given Applicant’s specification paragraph 43 “For example, if the user (e.g., 350-351) logs into the website, or is otherwise recognized, such as through tracked cookies, etc., the zip code used for the location of the user (e.g., 350-351) can be a zip code stored in the profile of the user (e.g., 350-351) and/or a zip code to which the user (e.g., 350-351) previously had an item shipped. In the same or other embodiments, the zip code can be determined based on geo-sniffing the current session of the user (e.g., 350-351). For example, the geo-sniffing can be based on global positioning system (GPS) data retrieved from the user computer (e.g., 340-341), IP (Internal Protocol) address location data for the user computer (e.g., 340-341), and/or other suitable geolocation methods”, the limitation amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as it is widely prevalent/in common use in the art/relevant industry that it was not described in detail in the specification.
None of the steps/functions of Claim 1 and Claim 11 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to the abstract idea, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, extra-solution activity, or field of use; thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination and the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, Claim 1 and Claim 11 are ineligible.
Claim 2-3 and Claim 12-13 merely specifies further how the shipping speed is determined. Claim 4-5 and Claim 14-15 merely specifies further what the preliminary eligibility information comprises and how it is generated. Claims 6-8 and Claims 16-18 merely specifies further what the current factors comprise. Claims 9-10 and 19-20 merely specifies further that the respective lists of zip codes are generated by the separate instances of the worker system at least every 15 minutes.
The dependent limitations are further directed towards the abstract idea of organizing human activity and mental processes. Thus, when viewed alone or as an ordered combination, nothing in dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackerman et al. (US9959562) in view of Mueller et al. (US2017/0124511) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2017/0278062) hereinafter referred to as Brightman in view of Leff et al. (US2010/0318407).
As per independent Claim 1 and Claim 11,
Ackerman teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: / A method implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run at one or more processors and stored at one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, the method comprising: (Col. 7 Lines 9-35, Col. 9 Lines 7-Col. 10 Lines 31 fulfillment management computer structure includes at least one memory and processor)
generating, by separate instances of a worker system, respective lists of zip codes that fulfillment nodes in a fulfillment network can deliver to via ground shipping within a first shipping time period, based at least in part on preliminary eligibility information and an evaluation of current factors (see Col. 2 Lines 37-65 markets are geographic areas with a boundary and a set of zip codes served by a fulfillment center is used as an example of a local and/or lower-level market; Col. 2 Line 66 to Col. 3 Line 20 where the location of the user is used to determine the local fulfillment center or local service provider – “The association of the local fulfillment center or service provider to the user may be affected by the geography in a market, including the definition of a top level market (e.g., global, national) or the definition of the local market (e.g., geographic code, city, apartment unit)”; Figure 1 and Col. 4 Line 4 to Col. 5 Line 36 where in Col. 4 Lines 26-43 geographic boundaries are created around fulfillment centers so a particular set of zip codes may be assigned to fulfillment center A as metro A; see Col. 4 Line 65 to Col. 5 Line 36 where the location of the user is used to identify a set of qualified fulfillment centers and each type of market is associated with a class of delivery which is the time frame associated with the delivery of the item to the user location – for example, same-day delivery or 4 hour delivery can be a class of delivery associated with a local market; Col. 10 Line 32-Col. 11 Line 8 where the system selects a fulfillment center; figure 3 and Col. 14 Lines 1-36 where the data store includes one or more qualified set of fulfillment centers data tables which may be a list of one or more locations of fulfillment centers that can be associated with a user location and the data store includes one or more fulfillment center geography data tables which may be a list of geographies associated with a fulfillment center where each fulfillment center may be associated with each zip code assigned to the fulfillment center and Lines 37-67 where the winning item data tables include a list of each winning item in one or more geographies such as the best price for apples located at fulfillment center A; Examiner noting that fulfillment center can deliver via ground shipping as seen in Col. 4 Lines 26-43 a 60 minute drive distance by truck from the fulfillment center; Col. 10 Line 61 to Col. 11 Line 8 where the location of the user may be accessible by a vehicle that originates from the local fulfillment center on the same day the user orders the item, the geography module determines whether the local fulfillment center is located within a same-day driving distance from the location of the user)
receiving a request comprising an input zip code (figure 6 and Col. 16 Line 48 to Col. 17 Line 16 where the process begins by receiving a location of the user; Col. 14 Lines 37-50 where a location of the user is the user’s zip code; see also Col. 4 Lines 26-43 where each user with zip code 98109 is associated with a geographic boundary created around a fulfillment center)
in response to the request, generating a response comprising a list of the fulfillment nodes based on the mapping, such that each fulfillment node in the list of the fulfillment nodes can deliver to the input zip code via ground shipping within a shipping time period (see Col. 4 Line 65 to Col. 5 Line 36 where the location of the user is used to identify a set of qualified fulfillment centers and each type of market is associated with a class of delivery which is the time frame associated with the delivery of the item to the user location - for example, same-day delivery or 4 hour delivery can be a class of delivery associated with a local market; Col. 12 Line 6 to Col. 13 Line 20 where in Col. 12 Lines 27-38 identify item in area associated with local fulfillment center where the zip-codes are within a particular travel time between the user location and the local fulfillment center; Col. 14 Lines 37-50 user data tables include location of the user (zip code, shipping address) and whether fulfillment center can deliver to the location of the user – for example, zip codes 98109 and 98114 are accessible to fulfillment center A as seen in the geography data table)
Ackerman suggests the limitation of “transforming”. See Col. 4 Line 65 to Col. 5 Line 36 where the location of the user is used to identify a set of qualified fulfillment centers; figure 3 and Col. 14 Lines 1-36 where the data store includes one or more qualified set of fulfillment centers data tables which may be a list of one or more locations of fulfillment centers that can be associated with a user location.
Ackerman does not teach, but Mueller teaches:
transforming, with an aggregator system, the respective lists of zip codes to generate a mapping from each zip code in the respective lists of zip codes to a respective list of the fulfillment nodes that can deliver via ground shipping to each zip code within the first shipping time period (para. 81 where the delivery driver may be driving a delivery van, car, truck, etc.; Figure 2 and para. 86-101 where in 86-87 where the user orders a product and the system displays delivery options for the product, in para. 88 customer provides their shipment address (see para. 135 where the zip code is extracted from the shipping address), in para. 99 where the system identifies a list of retail stores in order of their proximity to the customer’s shipping address; Figure 15a-c and para. 169-173 where the table in figure 15c and para. 173, has flags indicating which stores support same day/express delivery for different products; Figure 17 and para. 175 where the shipping method table details a matrix mapping one geolocation to another and estimating the delivery time between each pair of locations – the matrix is used to identify the store from where it takes minimum time to deliver the product to the customer’s shipping address; Para. 47-49, 54 various databases)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Mueller with the motivation of improving item fulfillment and item delivery time. See Mueller para. 41 “several pre-determined parameters are used to process customers' requests to buy different products, which are routed to the most feasible distribution center/retail store carrying the products. The transactions may be routed to a given retail associate on duty in a selected retail store or distribution center, based on said parameters and programmed rules. The result of this process is improved product fulfillment and order accuracy. This process also improves product delivery time and provides enhancement of the overall customer experience during the process of customers' interaction with retail associates, starting from the generation of the transaction request message to buy the product, to the last mile phase”.
Ackerman/Mueller does not teach, but Brightman teaches:
Receiving an input shipping time period (Para. 10 delivery speed preference and where items are stored in warehouses which may be in the same metropolitan area as the user or stored in warehouses several states away – shorter geographic distance means items are more quickly available and greater geographic distance means items are less quickly available; para. 12 user specifies delivery speed preference; para. 14-17 and figure 1 the user may select a delivery speed preference which may be a fixed window for delivery (by 10 am))
Can deliver within the input shipping time period (para. 11 availability of a particular delivery speed depends on the delivery address of the user, location of item inventory, availability of a delivery service, etc.; para. 25 each item associated with inventory locations which may be fulfillment centers where the items are stored; para. 28 where the delivery speed preference is used to filter the offers of items available at the preferred delivery speed; para. 29-30 delivery methods are associated with service levels and there are rules that indicate which geographic areas and delivery addresses are served via a delivery method; para. 52-53 delivery carriers capacity and methods)
determining, in real-time while a webpage for an item loads, a shipping speed to display to a user for the item based at least in part on the list of the fulfillment nodes (figure 3A-3B and para. 35-38 where the user provides their delivery address and delivery speed preference (1 hour) and the user interface is customized and updated to show items that are available within the preferred delivery speed; figure 3C and para. 39-40 where the detail page is customized for the delivery speed preference; figure 3E and para. 43-45 where item is not available at preferred delivery speed since the inventory of the item at the nearby location may have already been sold or a delivery cut-off time may have been missed; Examiner noting that the shipping speed displayed is based on the list of fulfillment nodes as described in para. 11 and 25 above, the inventory location affects the shipping speed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Brightman with the motivation of improving the user experience.
See para. 1 “Networked systems for item search and navigation typically receive user-defined search criteria from a client device, and then perform a database search in order to generate a result set of items. A result set may be very large, and the client device may be unable to display the result set within a single screen or page. Thus, additional criteria may be solicited from the user after the search is performed in order to rank or filter the result set so that the user does not have to scan through many undesired results” and para. 8-9 “The present disclosure relates to customizing an item search and browsing experience based on an expressed user preference. After a user performs an item search using a search query, a multitude of items may be returned based on relevance to the search query. The client device of the user may have a relatively small display and may not be able to show many items from the result set of items. Consequently, the user may have to review numerous pages of item search results in order to find a particular item that interests him or her. One approach to improving the user experience may involve allowing the user to define additional criteria for sorting or filtering the search results after the results are presented. However, these additional criteria do not persist after the search and are not used to customize subsequent navigation within a network site… Various embodiments of the present disclosure facilitate a user specification of a preference that persists during the browsing session. Thus, when additional searches are performed, the results are automatically customized for the persistent preference.”
Ackerman/Mueller/Brightman does not teach, Leff teaches:
wherein the input zip code is determined using at least one of a tracking cookie for a user using a website or geo-sniffing a current session of the user using the website (para. 33-34 consumers visit a website without creating an account or registering, thus the system may use the consumer’s IP address to determine consumer location or receiving user input; para. 35 and figure 4 obtaining the consumer’s zip code through cookie information stored on the consumer’s internet browser; see also para. 61 system tracks consumers through cookies stored through the consumer’s web browser)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Leff since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of wherein the input zip code is determined using a tracking cookie for a user using a website of Leff for the wherein the input zip code is received from the user of Ackerman. Both are methods utilized to obtain a customer’s zip code. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As for dependent Claim 2 and Claim 12,
Ackerman/Mueller/Brightman/Leff teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Ackerman/Mueller does not teach, but
Brightman teaches:
wherein determining the shipping speed to display to the user for the item is further based on a geo-classification for the item (para. 24-25 the items organized into classification tree of categories and each item is associated with item information which includes shipping classifications and delivery options – for example, an item may be available for delivery via parcel post, next-day air, bicycle courier, etc.; para. 10 deliver option)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Brightman with the motivation of improving the user experience. See para. 10 where the user provides delivery speed preference as a variety of delivery options are provided for the items.
As for dependent Claim 4 and Claim 14,
Ackerman/Mueller/Brightman/Leff teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Ackerman does not teach, but Mueller teaches:
wherein the preliminary eligibility information comprises a preliminary mapping from (a) each combination of (i) each individual fulfillment node of the fulfillment nodes, (ii) each individual carrier method of carrier methods, and (iii) each individual transit time of a set of transit times to (b) a preliminary list of zip codes that can be delivered to via ground shipping from the individual fulfillment node using the individual carrier method within the individual transit time (para. 81 where the delivery driver may be driving a delivery van, car, truck, etc.; Figure 2 and para. 86-101 where in 86-87 where the user orders a product and the system displays delivery options for the product, in para. 88 customer provides their shipment address (see para. 135 where the zip code is extracted from the shipping address), in para. 99 where the system identifies a list of retail stores in order of their proximity to the customer’s shipping address; Figure 15a-c and para. 169-173 where the table in figure 15c and para. 173, has flags indicating which stores support same day/express delivery for different products; Figure 17 and para. 175 where the shipping method table details a matrix mapping one geolocation to another and estimating the delivery time between each pair of locations – the matrix is used to identify the store from where it takes minimum time to deliver the product to the customer’s shipping address; Para. 47-49, 54 various databases)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Mueller with the motivation of improving item fulfillment and item delivery time. See Mueller para. 41 “several pre-determined parameters are used to process customers' requests to buy different products, which are routed to the most feasible distribution center/retail store carrying the products. The transactions may be routed to a given retail associate on duty in a selected retail store or distribution center, based on said parameters and programmed rules. The result of this process is improved product fulfillment and order accuracy. This process also improves product delivery time and provides enhancement of the overall customer experience during the process of customers' interaction with retail associates, starting from the generation of the transaction request message to buy the product, to the last mile phase”.
As for dependent Claim 5 and Claim 15,
Ackerman/Mueller/Brightman/Leff teaches the system of claim 4 and the method of claim 14.
Ackerman teaches:
wherein the preliminary eligibility information is generated at least in part by using a transportation map to consolidate a list of fulfillment nodes that are available to deliver by ground shipping within the first shipping time period to each of one or more zip codes (Col. 4 Lines 26-43 locations (users with zip codes within the geographic boundary) are easily accessible by the fulfillment center (a 60 minute drive distance by truck from the fulfillment center); Col. 10 Line 61 to Col. 11 Line 8 where the location of the user may be accessible by a vehicle that originates from the local fulfillment center on the same day the user orders the item, the geography module determines whether the local fulfillment center is located within a same-day driving distance from the location of the user; Col. 14 Lines 1-50 where the data store includes the list of geographics based on the distance between the local fulfillment center and the centroid of a zip code and further the user data table includes a user zip code and whether the fulfillment center can deliver to the location of the user)
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackerman et al. (US9959562) in view of Mueller et al. (US2017/0124511) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2017/0278062) hereinafter referred to as Brightman in view of Leff et al. (US2010/0318407) as applied to independent claim 1 and claim 11, further in view of Chowdhry et al. (US2017/0255903).
As for dependent Claim 6 and Claim 16,
Ackerman/Mueller/Brightman/Leff teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Ackerman does not teach, but Mueller teaches:
wherein the current factors comprise: (a) calendars for carrier methods at the fulfillment nodes, (b) calendars for the carrier methods, and (c) capacities of the carrier methods to handle additional orders (para. 81 where the delivery driver may be driving a delivery van, car, truck, etc.; Figure 2 and para. 86-101 where in 86-87 where the user orders a product and the system displays delivery options for the product, in para. 88 customer provides their shipment address (see para. 135 where the zip code is extracted from the shipping address), in para. 99 where the system identifies a list of retail stores in order of their proximity to the customer’s shipping address; Figure 15a-c and para. 169-173 where para. 170 describes a distribution location table including the distribution location’s operating hours in the form of a calendar schedule, the delivery priority of the location, capacity, etc.; Figure 17 and para. 175 where the shipping method table details a matrix mapping one geolocation to another and estimating the delivery time between each pair of locations – the matrix is used to identify the store from where it takes minimum time to deliver the product to the customer’s shipping address; para. 179 ranking the distribution locations based on parameters such as distance of distribution location from shipping address, inventory level for the products within the locations, number of associates currently available within each location their availability status, and carrier cost)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Mueller with the motivation of improving item fulfillment and item delivery time. See Mueller para. 41 “several pre-determined parameters are used to process customers' requests to buy different products, which are routed to the most feasible distribution center/retail store carrying the products. The transactions may be routed to a given retail associate on duty in a selected retail store or distribution center, based on said parameters and programmed rules. The result of this process is improved product fulfillment and order accuracy. This process also improves product delivery time and provides enhancement of the overall customer experience during the process of customers' interaction with retail associates, starting from the generation of the transaction request message to buy the product, to the last mile phase”.
Mueller did not explicitly teach delivery calendars for the carrier methods.
Ackerman/Mueller does not teach, but Brightman teaches:
(b) delivery calendars for the carrier methods (Para. 52 determine which delivery methods are available given the delivery location and time of day – for example, more delivery methods are available in the morning than afternoon as there may be a cut-off time since delivery carriers have limited capacity due to deliveries that have already been scheduled; see para. 11 and 43 for more on cut-off time)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Brightman with the motivation of improving the efficiency of the delivery process by accounting for the carrier’s updated schedule.
See para. 52 “The item search and navigation application 215 may be configured to obtain updated delivery method data 227 from external or internal data providers on-demand or on a periodic basis.”
Mueller did not explicitly teach pickup calendars for the carrier methods at the fulfillment nodes.
Ackerman/Mueller/Brightman/Leff does not teach, but Chowdhry teaches:
(a) pickup calendars for the carrier methods at the fulfillment nodes (para. 53 calendar management module includes a logistics calendar identifying when each carrier performs a pickup at each regional warehouse, which holiday each carrier observes, and the like)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Chowdhry with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of delivery time calculations. See para. 21-22 “The systems and techniques may take into account direct shipment to customer or shipment from a stocking location (e.g., regional warehouse)…Such real-time determinations provide the customer with an excellent purchase experience by determining how to provide the customer with the shortest available delivery time and accurate delivery expectations…The systems and techniques may enable planned events and unplanned events to be taken into account when determining delivery times. Planned events may include shutdowns due to holidays (e.g., Golden Week in China), high order volume time periods (e.g., the time period between Black Friday and Christmas in the United States), and other scheduled or known events. Unplanned events may include labor problems (e.g., strike at a port or manufacturing facility), natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes or tsunami) at a component manufacturer, etc. The system includes a special events management component to enable automatic adjustments for events to be made to lead-times provided to consumers or sales representatives that are making purchases. For example, if a tsunami in an Asian country causes manufacturing of a particular hard drive to be delayed, products that are built on demand using that particular hard drive may be updated to reflect an extension in shipping dates for the products.”
As for dependent Claim 7 and Claim 17,
Ackerman/Mueller/Brightman/Leff/Chowdhry teaches the system of claim 6 and the method of claim 16.
Ackerman does not teach, but Mueller teaches:
wherein the current factors further comprise respective capacities of the fulfillment nodes to handle additional orders (Figure 2 and para. 86-101 where in 86-87 where the user orders a product and the system displays delivery options for the product, in para. 88 customer provides their shipment address (see para. 135 where the zip code is extracted from the shipping address), in para. 99 where the system identifies a list of retail stores in order of their proximity to the customer’s shipping address; Figure 15a-c and para. 169-173 where para. 170 describes a distribution location table including the distribution location’s operating hours in the form of a calendar schedule, the delivery priority of the location, capacity, etc.; Figure 17 and para. 175 where the shipping method table details a matrix mapping one geolocation to another and estimating the delivery time between each pair of locations – the matrix is used to identify the store from where it takes minimum time to deliver the product to the customer’s shipping address; para. 179 ranking the distribution locations based on parameters such as distance of distribution location from shipping address, inventory level for the products within the locations, number of associates currently available within each location and their availability status, and carrier cost)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Mueller with the motivation of improving item fulfillment and item delivery time. See Mueller para. 41 “several pre-determined parameters are used to process customers' requests to buy different products, which are routed to the most feasible distribution center/retail store carrying the products. The transactions may be routed to a given retail associate on duty in a selected retail store or distribution center, based on said parameters and programmed rules. The result of this process is improved product fulfillment and order accuracy. This process also improves product delivery time and provides enhancement of the overall customer experience during the process of customers' interaction with retail associates, starting from the generation of the transaction request message to buy the product, to the last mile phase”.
As for dependent Claim 8 and Claim 18,
Ackerman/Mueller/Brightman/Leff/Chowdhry teaches the system of claim 6 and the method of claim 16.
Ackerman/Mueller/Brightman/Leff does not teach, but Chowdhry teaches:
wherein the current factors further comprise respective processing times for the fulfillment nodes (para. 18-20 where the system accounts for additional time when an item is not in inventory to reflect the time for the item to be manufactured and adjusting lead-times for products based on real time events through the supply chain; para. 21-22 where the system accounts for delivery from a warehouse and accounts for planned events such as shutdowns, high order volume time periods, labor problems, etc.; para. 23 the system determines shipping dates and delivery dates based on lead times and availability; see also para. 50-53)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ackerman invention with Chowdhry with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of delivery time calculations. See para. 21-22 “The systems and techniques may take into account direct shipment to customer or shipment from a stocking location (e.g., regional warehouse)…Such real-time determinations provide the customer with an excellent purchase experience by determining how to provide the customer with the shortest available delivery time and accurate delivery expectations…The systems and techniques may enable planned events and unplanned events to be taken into account when determining delivery times. Planned events may include shutdowns due to holidays (e.g., Golden Week in China), high order volume time periods (e.g., the time period between Black Friday and Christmas in the United States), and other scheduled or known events. Unplanned events may include labor problems (e.g., strike at a port or manufacturing facility), natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes or tsunami) at a component manufacturer, etc. The system includes a special events management component to enable automatic adjustments for events to be made to lead-times provided to consumers or sales representatives that are making purchases. For example, if a tsunami in an Asian country causes manufacturing of a particular hard drive to be delayed, products that are b