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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 10/24/2025.
Claims 11-20 and 22-23 are currently pending.
Claims 11 has been amended.
Claim 24 is newly added.
Claims 9-10 and 21 have been canceled.
Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claim 24 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 24 is directed to an invention that is distinct from the original invention since claim 24 requires the collection of a set of parcel data associated with a training window from a set of carrier applications, and the contemporaneous training of each of a plurality of neural networks using different training sets, wherein each neural network is for an origin-destination pair. Such elements are not seen in the original invention of claim 11. Furthermore, claim 11 requires dynamically requesting parcel data for each parcel in a set of parcels and for each of a set or services options for each parcel, predicting a transit time, and selecting a carrier service, each element is not seen in claim 24.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 24 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-14 of Applicant’s response filed 10/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 7-10, that the claims do not recite one or more abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the prediction of a transit time and selection of a carrier service for a package recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies regularly perform this step in order to do business with shipment customers. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments that the steps cannot be performed by the human mind and pen and paper are found unpersuasive, since predicting a transit time for a parcel using a machine learning model could indeed be performed by hand and since a human using their mind an simple evaluation and judgment could select a carrier service based on sets of inputs and transit times. Applicant appears to argue that the training of the model cannot be performed by a human using their mind and pen and paper. However, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not positively recite the training of the model itself. Rather, the claims merely require the prediction of a transit time for a package using this type of model (one which has been trained in such a way). Since no training is actually required by the claims, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, with respect to claim 24 are moot since the claim has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits.
Applicant argues, on pages 10-11, that the claims provide an inventive concept over conventional activity in the field since models typically are trained using larger sets of data rather than smaller subsets of data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined above, narrowing or selecting training data is part of the abstract idea itself, and such an improvement is to the abstract idea itself. Any improved accuracy that stems from such represents an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than any technical component or technical field. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive. What’s more, as outlined above, the claims themselves do not require the actual training of the models, but rather use models which have been trained in such a way. Since the claims merely use models which have been trained, rather than actually requiring the training of the models, the claims do not bring forth the alleged improvement, and Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues, on pages 9-10, that the claims integrate the one or more abstract ideas into a practical application thereof. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims bring about the technical improvements of capturing distinct patters that a single model trained on comprehensive data might overlook through the use of multiple machine learning models, enhancing overall predictive accuracy by selecting the best model for patters, improving model interpretability, and reducing computational efficiency. Examiner respectfully notes that such improvements are not to any technical component or technology itself, but rather are to the abstract ideas (the training, selection, and use steps) themselves. These benefits would be brought forth if the abstract ideas were practiced outside the realm of the generic computer components recited. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Since each of these improvements is to the abstract idea itself, rather than any computing technology, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 11-13, that the claims provide an inventive concept over conventional activity in the field since models typically are trained using larger sets of data rather than smaller subsets of data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined above, narrowing or selecting training data is part of the abstract idea itself, and such an improvement is to the abstract idea itself. Any improved accuracy that stems from such represents an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than any technical component or technical field. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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 11-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claim 11 the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine). The claimed invention of independent claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: 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); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claim 11, as a whole, recites the following limitations:
. . . . receive a set of inputs from a user and parcel information for each of a set of parcels; and (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive these inputs from a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in predicting shipment times while performing shipment services for customers)
for each parcel in the set of parcels: for each of a set of carrier service options for the parcel:
dynamically request parcel data. . . wherein the parcel data is requested based on the parcel information; and (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could request this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in predicting shipment times while performing shipment services for customers)
predict a transit time for the parcel using a machine learning model trained on the parcel data, wherein the machine learning model is selected from a plurality of models for an origin-destination pair associated with the parcel, wherein each model of the plurality of models is contemporaneously trained on a different set of historical delivery data selected from a training window based on a reference date; wherein each set of historical delivery data is extracted from a different time period within the training window; and (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could predict a transit time for a parcel using a machine learning model which has been trained in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in predicting shipment times while performing shipment services for customers; alternatively sill, this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical operation or formula for performing the prediction)
for the set of parcels, select a carrier service from the set of carrier service options based on the set of inputs and the predicted transit times for each parcel. (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment make this selection based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in predicting shipment times while performing shipment services for customers)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
a user interface configured to (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a processing system configured to: (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
rom a carrier application programming interface (API), (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 12-20 and 22-23, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 12:
further comprising a label generator configured to generate a label for each of the set of parcels based on the selected carrier service.
Regarding the label generator, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. To the extent that the claim positively requires the generation of a label, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a label; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step while performing shipment services for customers.
Claim 13:
wherein selecting the carrier service from the set of carrier service options comprises selecting the carrier service based on a carrier service selection rule.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make a selection based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step while performing shipment services for customers.
Claim 14:
wherein the carrier service selection rule comprises a transit time constraint for the user and a carrier service rate constraint for the user.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make a selection based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step while performing shipment services for customers.
Claim 15:
wherein the transit time constraint comprises a target transit time threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make a selection based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step while performing shipment services for customers.
Claim 16:
wherein, for each parcel in the set of parcels, the processing system is further configured to, for each of the set of carrier service options for the parcel, execute each of the plurality of models to predict historical transit times, wherein the machine learning model is selected from the plurality of models based on the predicted historical transit times.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could execute a set of candidate models in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step while performing shipment services for customers; alternatively still this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical operation or formula for performing this step.
Claim 17:
wherein the processing system is configured to execute the set of candidate models in parallel.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could execute a set of candidate models in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step while performing shipment services for customers; alternatively still this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical operation or formula for performing this step. Regarding the requirement to perform these steps in parallel, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, to the extent that the claim actually requires a physical component performing this step, this limitation amounts to the mere use of the capabilities of a general purpose computer to speed up a process or perform two processes simultaneously.
Claim 18:
wherein, for each parcel in the set of parcels, the parcel information comprises an origin address and a destination address, wherein, for each of the set of carrier service options for the parcel, dynamically retrieving parcel data comprises dynamically selecting a size of an origin geographic region associated with the origin address and a size of a destination geographic region associated with the destination address, wherein the parcel data comprises data for historical shipments between the origin geographic region and the destination geographic region.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could retrieve this information and select sizes of origin and destination regions; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step while performing shipment services for customers.
Claim 19:
wherein the machine learning model is trained using supervised learning.
This limitation merely alters the type of machine learning model used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 20:
wherein the parcel information for each parcel comprises at least one of: a destination address, a parcel size, a parcel weight, or a parcel value.
This limitation merely alters the type of information used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 22:
wherein predicting the transit time for the parcel comprises executing only the machine learning model for the parcel on a processing system comprising a processor, and not executing a remainder of the plurality of models for the parcel on the processing system.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a processing system. Regarding the decision to execute one model and not another (if indeed such a decision is positively recited by the claims), the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind and simple judgment and evaluation could determine which models to execute and which models not to execute.
Claim 23:
wherein different time periods for different models within the plurality of models has a start date with a different time differential from the reference date; wherein the time differential of each time period is selected from a plurality of predetermined time differentials.
Regarding the use of different time periods, this limitation merely alters the information used to train and execute the models recited by the claims. This limitation further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above. Regarding the selection of time differentials of time periods, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select time differentials of different time periods.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 12-20 and 22-23, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628