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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 10/16/2025 filing with the USPTO.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, 15, and 17-20 are amended.
No claims are canceled, withdrawn or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “the claimed invention improves "the technical field of delivery scheduling" by ensuring that the distribution center has enough resources to perform the delivery schedule before expending resources to transmit the delivery schedule to the distribution center. This reduces wasting networking resources on transmitting delivery schedules that cannot be performed” Remarks p. 11.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The provides the claimed invention is for outbound order optimization for determining a target delivery. (Spec [1]). The specification does not provide the invents seeks to reduces wasting networking resources. Even if it did expressly state the invention reduces wasting networking resources this would be ancillary to optimization for determining a target delivery, as a negative limitation. The schedule is optimized it does not follow that the system resources are improved. The system is just used less – if you have a direct route to a destination have you improve the vehicle? No, the vehicle is simply used less.
For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
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 (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-10 are to a system (machine) and claims 11-20 are to a method (process).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform:
receiving input information corresponding to allocating one or more containers for delivery from a distribution center to a store during a first time period, the one or more containers including one or more products;
processing the input information to determine distribution center constraint information and store constraint information;
generating a delivery schedule for the one or more containers from the distribution center to the store over one or more periods of time based on the distribution center constraint information and the store constraint information, wherein each of the one or more periods of time correspond to a day;
validating, before transmitting, via a network, the delivery schedule as a target delivery schedule to the distribution center, the delivery schedule based on the distribution center having enough resources to perform the delivery schedule during the one or more periods of time; and
transmitting, via the network and after validating the delivery schedule and to the distribution center, the delivery schedule as the target delivery schedule to enable the distribution center to allocate the resources to perform the target delivery schedule.
The claims are directed towards creating and validating a delivery schedule. Where the instant specification discloses, “on user device 340, which can allow users (e.g., 350) to interact with delivery analysis engine 310, in addition to other suitable activities.” (Spec. [36] also see fig. 3). It is the user that drives the scheduling process. The schedule itself is abstract in that it is a plan to later do something, rather than actually doing the thing planned. Here the plan is to direct the actions of users in a distribution center to manage inventory within the constraints of the environment. – Thus the within the abstract idea category of a certain methods of organizing human activity.
The system as claimed is tool to assist the user in the creation of the schedule. That is to say a user given the known information could generate and validate a schedule; using the abilities of the human mind to evaluate the known information (information corresponding to allotting one or more containers) to make judgment (processing information) that generates and validates the delivery schedule. – Thus the within the abstract idea category of a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The receiving elements are determined to be a step of data gathering and the transmitting a step of outputting – both insignificant extra solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The instant specification, provides a general and generic computer system, see at least Spec [23-25].
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin et al (US 2023/0297089 A1) teaches if the user manually increases a production quantity of a finished good but raw material inventory is not sufficient for that quantity, the schedule validation can identify the constraint violation . In some cases, this can be done in real-time so that users can be notified of any issues.
Isham (US 6,766,508 B1) teaches the event 142 is validated by the anonymous scheduler 100 against system resources at the time the events are submitted to the system to ensure that sufficient resources exists for the later time when the event is to be executed.
Wise (US 2019/0168902 A1) teaches resource model allocates ingredients, personnel, and validates that sufficient ingredients and resources are assigned to meet demand and the delivery schedule.
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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623