DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 07.09.2024. Claims 1-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicants’ oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) have been acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of Foreign Application, China 202311182628.3 filed on 09.13.2023 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the FA date of 09.13.2023 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to the technical fields of logistics distribution and intelligent dispatching.
Independent claim 1 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 is directed to a method for processing a logistic waybill, comprising the steps of:
acquiring a sales order to be delivered;
splitting the sales order into a plurality of sub-orders;
planning and obtaining the logistics waybill;
binding vehicle information;
generating a first instruction and sending the first instruction to a current pickup plant area based on position information; and
generating reconciliation settlement information.
These limitations when considered individually and as an ordered combination, describe managing logistics allocating an order among plant areas, order fulfillment, shipment planning, and financial settlement, which constitute certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions and business practice or more specifically “business process optimization and data processing. Specifically, the claim recites steps that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, involving concepts like splitting orders, planning logistics, and generating instructions, and therefore, also fall within the category of mental processes.
Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), claims that are directed to financial transaction processing or intermediated settlement, commercial interactions or business relationships, implemented on a generic computer technology constitute an abstract idea. Clearly, method and apparatus for processing logistics waybill fall under sales activities or behaviors, therefore it would fall under commercial or business relationships, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a logistics waybill, a delivery vehicle, position information of the delivery vehicle, and a current pickup plant area. The recited functions (acquiring, splitting, planning, binding, generating/sending and instruction, and generating reconciliation) are generic computer/data-processing activities and are described at a level of generality that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the logistic field. Accordingly, the recited functions do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application, there is no indication in the claim of an unconventional arrangement, a specific technological improvement (e.g., to a vehicle dispatch system, location determination algorithm, or waybill data structure), or a particular machine that performs the steps in a non-conventional way.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The claims do not include components that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. The components, individually and in combination, represent: well-understood routine and conventional activities, and generic computer functions such as receiving data, processing data and transmitting information. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of processing logistics waybill, which fails to add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, these additional elements and components, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., method and apparatus for processing logistics waybill) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 define the same that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 15, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmolt et al., Pub. No.: US 2003/0172007 in view of Song et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0372453.
As per claim 1, Helmolt discloses a method for processing a logistics waybill [see at least ¶0005 (e.g., logistical processing (e.g., a combined logistics process with different sales channels needs the coordination of logistics activities)), and shown in FIG. 1 below], comprising: acquiring a sales order to be delivered [see at least ¶0018 (e.g., receipt of goods when the order comprises an inbound delivery), and shown in FIG. 1 below];
splitting the sales order into a plurality of sub-orders according to the sales order and inventory information of a plurality of plant areas in a case where the sales order needs to be split and arranged for shipment [see at least the abstract (e.g., receive an order, use a first set of rules to split the order into one or more work packages necessary to fulfill the order, and use a second set of rules to assign the work packages to one or more partners), and shown in FIG. 1 below];
PNG
media_image1.png
614
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the plurality of sub-orders comprises a shipment quantity and a shipping address of a corresponding plant area [see at least ¶0127 (e.g., services 458 contain information about the services described above. For a specific customer configuration, the system landscape directory 460 contains information about the installed components (e.g., the addresses of the systems). The business partners 465 include information about the company's business partners. This information may be used, for example, in selecting business partners to execute work packages)];
planning and obtaining the logistics waybill according to shipment quantities and shipping addresses of the plurality of sub-orders and a delivery address of the sales order [see at least ¶0161 (e.g., referring to FIG. 25, in one particular configuration a single supply chain management system 1000 is used to direct networking, planning, coordination, and execution. The system 1000 includes applications, such as supply chain planning 1005, supply chain collaboration 1010, supply chain performance management 1015, supply chain event management 1020, transportation management 1025, flexible manufacturing 1030, lean inventory management 1035, and fulfillment coordination 1040), as shown below …. and see also ¶0145 (e.g., In flow-through delivery, large shipments of goods are broken into smaller units before they are assigned to a particular recipient at a repacking zone. In the repacking zone, the goods are repacked for immediate outbound processing. Flow-through delivery is useful when, for example, a recipient is to receive only half a pallet. The fulfillment coordination engine can be used in flow-through delivery of a warehouse service and has particular applicability in apparel and imported products, where a large shipment may consist of numerous articles of a single item that are unlikely to be required by a retailer in such quantities)];
PNG
media_image2.png
429
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
binding vehicle information of a delivery vehicle receiving the logistics waybill with the logistics waybill [see at least ¶0104 (e.g., transport module provides planning and execution functions, such as transport planning, vehicle scheduling, yard management, and transport documents)];
generating a first instruction and sending the first instruction to a current pickup plant area based on position information of the delivery vehicle before the delivery vehicle arrives at the current pickup plant area [see at least ¶0109 (e.g., The packing module also has additional functions. One additional function is to create packing documents, which are transferred with the product to the next location or the customer. A second additional function is to perform confirmation of the packaging of a product or of the loading of a product onto loading equipment. This confirmation is useful when notifying a logistics partner, such as a shipping service, that the product is ready for pickup and shipping)]; and
generating reconciliation settlement information in a case where the logistics waybill is signed for [see at least ¶0152 (e.g., The master data management system 674 communicates with other applications and functionalities, such as SAP CRM and SRM to provide inventory visibility 676 to the customers and partners, settlement of bills and invoices 678, complaints management 680, and supply chain event management 682), and shown in FIG. 12 below].
PNG
media_image3.png
475
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Helmolt discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Helmolt does not expressly mention sub-orders. However, Song discloses [see at least the abstract (e.g., dividing an order into a first sub-order and a second sub-order (201); determining a target site for delivery of the product combination (202); determining a first required time length for transporting a main product from a first warehouse to the target site and a second required time length for transporting promotional product of each second sub-order from a corresponding second warehouse to the target site (203)), and as illustrated in FIG. 2 below].
PNG
media_image4.png
550
423
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Song in order to provide a plurality of products, before delivery, e-commerce platforms may divide the orders into sub-orders that include main products and promotional products respectively according to production conditions of the orders and deliver to the users [Song: ¶0004].
As per claim 2, Helmolt discloses wherein splitting the sales order into the plurality of sub-orders according to the sales order and inventory information of the plurality of plant areas in the case where the sales order needs to be split and arranged for shipment, comprises: determining a quantity demanded for a target product in the sales order; determining an inventory quantity of the target product in each of the plurality of plant areas; in the case where the sales order needs to be split and arranged for shipment, determining a plurality of shipping plant areas and corresponding shipment quantities from the plurality of plant areas according to the quantity demanded for the target product, inventory quantities of the plurality of plant areas and a priority shipping rule; and obtaining the plurality of sub-orders according to the plurality of shipping plant areas and corresponding shipment quantities [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Helmolt and Song, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 2 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 2. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 3, Helmolt discloses wherein planning and obtaining the logistics waybill according to the shipment quantities and the shipping addresses of the plurality of sub-orders and the delivery address of the sales order, comprises: determining an optimal vehicle combination according to the shipment quantities and shipping addresses of the plurality of sub-orders and maximum loading capacities of a plurality of types of delivery vehicles; and obtaining the logistics waybill according to a pickup quantity of each delivery vehicle in the optimal vehicle combination in at least one plant area, an address of the at least one plant area, and the delivery address of the sales order [see at least ¶0142 (via vehicle fleet management), and see the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Helmolt and Song, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 4, Helmolt discloses wherein binding the vehicle information of the delivery vehicle receiving the logistics waybill with the logistics waybill, comprises: obtaining the vehicle information of the delivery vehicle according to account information of a driver receiving the logistics waybill on a logistics distribution system [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Helmolt and Song, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference]; and binding the vehicle information with the logistics waybill within a task date of the logistics waybill [see at least ¶0139 (e.g., the planned values for season function as triggers such that quantities are ordered on a planned date)].
10. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmolt in view of Song, and further in view of Kim et al., Pub. No.: US 2025/0029055.
As per claims 5-8, the combination of Helmolt and Song in view of Kim, further discloses estimating travel time required for the delivery vehicle to arrive at the current pickup plant area in the logistics waybill according to the location information of the delivery vehicle using a logistics distribution system [see at least Kim ¶0091 (e.g., it is possible to predict a time that a delivery vehicle passes each position of the delivery path. That is, the integrated logistics control server 30 may calculate an estimated arrival time)]; determining stocking time of products to be shipped in the logistics waybill using a warehousing system of the current pickup plant area, wherein the stocking time comprises a first time length required to ship out all products to be shipped in the logistics waybill to the platform and a second time length required to complete a pre-shipping task, and generating a stocking instruction according to the travel time and stocking time, and sending the stocking instruction to the warehousing system of the current pickup plant area, wherein the stocking instruction is used to instruct the warehousing system to ship out the product to be shipped [see at least Kim ¶0109 (e.g., it is assumed that the target delivery vehicle requires 2 A items in stock and 3 B items in stock required to process a real-time delivery order. In this case, the integrated logistics control server 30 may generate supplementary information including information related to inventory required for the target delivery vehicle. Thereafter, the integrated logistics control server 30 may transmit supplementary information to the target delivery vehicle to receive 2 A items in stock and 3 B items from the supplementary vehicle, and may transmit supplementary information to the supplementary vehicle to deliver 2 A items in stock and 3 B items to the target delivery vehicle)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Kim in order to provide a delivery management method and system for real time delivery orders [Kim: background].
11. Claims 9-14, which are parallel to claims 1-8 in terms of scope, limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-8. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-8].
12. Claims 15-20, which are parallel to claims 1-8 in terms of scope, limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-8. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-8].
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,776,748, Jones: discloses electronic communication analysis as relates to logistics, aggregation of data and bidding for logistics handling.
US 11,983,665, Lafrance: discloses a management service for exposing, abstracting, and integrating multiple supply chain network elements from different parties into a single supply chain and delivery network.
US 6,915,268, Riggs: discloses a logistics system that manages the shipments of goods supplied from a plurality of different shippers by a plurality of carriers.
US 11,080,652, Chen: discloses systems and methods for managing supply chains, comprise an automated system for maintaining an inventory of products.
WO 2023202244, QUAN: discloses methods, devices, electronic devices, and computer-readable media for splitting shipment quantities.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
15. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627