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 Application
This office action is in response to the most recently filing filed by the applicants on 12/15/25.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 are amended
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 11 are cancelled
No claims are added
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10 and 12 are pending
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 1-2, 4, and 6 is/are directed to a device/apparatus which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 7-8, 10, and 12 is/are directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Identify the Abstract Idea(s)
The Alice framework, steps 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo Test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. Further, particular groupings of abstract ideas are consistent with judicial precedent and are based on an extraction and synthesis of the key concepts identified by the courts as being abstract.
Independent claims 1 and 7, with respect to the Step 2A, Prong One, when “taken as a whole” the claims as drafted, and given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (business relations; relationships or interactions between people). For instance, independent Method Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “a first step of creating an assignment proposal to assign each of the transportation delivery instructions to each of the service trips for which a service plan was created in advance; a second step of devising a sorting plan for the packages at a relay base on the basis of the created assignment proposal for each transportation delivery instruction; and a third step calculating sorting times of sorting tasks at the relay base according to the sorting plan and evaluating the transportation delivery plan based on a calculation result, the sorting time being calculated by using a calculation method according to a package sorting ability to sort the packages at the relay base, a fourth step of changing the sorting plan or modifying the assignment proposal, based on an evaluation result of the transportation delivery plan, so that the sorting task for the respective packages will be completed at the relay base before a departure of the service trip for a connecting destination assigned to each of the transportation delivery instructions, wherein the package sorting ability depends on a time of day defined by a start time and an end time, as a time slot, among a plurality of time slots for the relay base, such that the relay base has different sorting abilities based on the time slots, wherein the package sorting ability is based on a task time per unit, a predetermined sorting destination coefficient, a fixed task time indicating a preparation time for a task, and an upper limit quantity of packages to be sorted by sorting equipment of the relay base.”
Applicants’ specification recites an advantage of the current system in [0005]: a method for efficiently creating plans for transshipping packages between transportation trips to achieve improved transport efficiency and serviceability without resulting in significant changes in the transportation plans between bases.
In light of the specification, these claim limitations belong to the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims are related to managing package delivery to improve transport efficiency and serviceability for one or more human entities involves organizing human activity based on the description of “certain methods of organizing human activity” provided by the courts. The court have used the phrase “Certain methods of organizing human activity” as —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).
Independent Claims 1 is/are recites substantially similar limitations to independent claim 7 and is/are rejected under 2A for similar reasons to claim 7 above.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
For Independent claims 1 and 7, with respect to the Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “A transportation and delivery planning method executed by a transportation and delivery planning apparatus for devising a transportation delivery plan to assign transportation delivery instructions regarding respective packages to service trips, the transportation and delivery planning method comprising: A transportation and delivery planning apparatus for devising a transportation delivery plan to assign transportation delivery instructions regarding respective packages to service trips, the transportation and delivery planning apparatus comprising: an assignment proposal creation unit, a sorting planning unit, an evaluation determination unit” at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claims 1 and 7 do not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are also directed to an abstract idea under 2A, first and second prong. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. For instance, dependent claims 8 recite “wherein in the first step, the transportation and delivery planning apparatus creates the assignment proposal according to a specified optimization method using a previously designated index as an objective variable” and dependent claims 10 recite “wherein in the third step, the transportation and delivery planning apparatus calculates the sorting time by using the calculation method according to the package sorting ability at the relay base, depending on whether the package sorting ability at the relay base corresponds to any one of following cases: a case where the sorting time varies according to a quantity of packages to be processed simultaneously; a case where the sorting time varies according to the quantity of packages to be processed simultaneously and a number of destinations; and a case where the sorting time varies according to the quantity of packages to be processed simultaneously, the number of destinations, and the upper limit quantity of packages to be sorted by sorting equipment.” Dependent claims 12 recites “wherein in the third step, the transportation and delivery planning apparatus displays the assignment proposal and the sorting plan which are finally obtained.” In these claim limitations “transportation and delivery planning apparatus” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B: Determine Whether Any Element, Or Combination, Amount to “Significantly More” Than the Abstract Idea Itself
With respect to Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the invention lacks improvements to another technology or technical field [see Alice at 2351; 2019 IEG at 55], and lacks meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment [Alice at 2360, 2019 IEG at 55], and fails to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing [2019 IEG, 55]. For the reasons articulated above, the claims recite an abstract idea that is limited to a particular field of endeavor (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and recites insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). By the factors and rationale provided above with respect to these MPEP sections, the additional elements of the claims that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application also fail to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “A transportation and delivery planning method executed by a transportation and delivery planning apparatus for devising a transportation delivery plan to assign transportation delivery instructions regarding respective packages to service trips, the transportation and delivery planning method comprising: A transportation and delivery planning apparatus for devising a transportation delivery plan to assign transportation delivery instructions regarding respective packages to service trips, the transportation and delivery planning apparatus comprising: an assignment proposal creation unit, a sorting planning unit, an evaluation determination unit” are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicants originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in page/ paragraph [0025]-[0028], [0033]-[0038]. In light of the specification, it should be noted that the components discussed above did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See MPEP 2106.05(f) - Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception - “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.). The additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. All of these additional elements are significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well- understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years. Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Independent Claims 1 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 7 and is/are rejected under 2B for similar reasons to claim 7 above.
Further, it should be noted that additional elements of the claimed invention such as claim limitations when considered individually or as an ordered combination along with the other limitations discussed above in method claim 7 also do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.
Similarly, dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 also do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under the second prong or 2B of the Alice framework. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. Further, it should be noted that the dependent claims do not include limitations that overcome the stated assertions. Here, the dependent claims recite features/limitations that include computer components identified above in part 2B of analysis of independent claims 1 and 7. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Further, Examiner notes that the addition limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106, January 2019 Guidance at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01 -07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20060020366 A1) Bloom, and further in view of Lehmann (US 9714145 B1).
As per claims 1 and 7: Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom shows:
A transportation and delivery planning method executed by a transportation and delivery planning apparatus for devising a transportation delivery plan to assign transportation delivery instructions regarding respective packages to service trips, the transportation and delivery planning method comprising (Bloom shows: Abstract: A method and system for efficient package delivery in bulk to pickup locations for recipients in which items ordered by different customers from one or more different retailers, suppliers, manufacturers, and the like can be sorted within and picked from an on-hand inventory at a distribution center and packed into a package for delivery to a specific pickup location for a specific recipient. A replenishment order for items to replace the on-hand inventory at the distribution center can be made to a fulfillment location to maintain inventory levels defined for an item at a distribution center. The items to replenish the on-hand inventory at the distribution center can be shipped in bulk from a fulfillment location in containers organized by item identifier. The items can be sorted at a different distribution center, still organized within containers of all the same item identifier, to reach the distribution center placing the replenishment order for the items.):
Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom in view of Lehmann shows:
a first step of creating an assignment proposal to assign each of the transportation delivery instructions to each of the service trips for which a service plan was created in advance
Regarding the claim limitations above, Bloom shows “a first step of creating … to assign each of the transportation delivery instructions to each of the service trips for which a service plan was created in advance” ([0010] The invention discloses a method and system for efficient bulk package delivery for recipients. The method for efficient bulk package delivery for recipients can include the steps of delivering the packages in bulk for a plurality of recipients in a single delivery stop to a destination centralized pickup location and loading the bulk delivered packages randomly into an automated system of storage locker bins. The step of delivering the packages in bulk for a plurality of recipients can further include, delivering items destined for recipients of the packages. The step of delivering the packages in bulk can include the step of sorting at an central location, for example an origination regional distribution center (RDC), items received from a plurality of retailers delivered to the origination RDC location, the items being organized by a common item identifier and destined for a plurality of recipients. [0011] The step of sorting the received items at the origination RDC location can be further comprised of the steps of identifying the received items based on their destination centralized pickup location, or their destination local distribution hub. Additionally, the received items can be identified to a destination RDC location. The identified items which are organized by a common item identifier can be sorted and grouped based on the identified destination RDC.)
However, Bloom does not explicitly show the behind the scenes planning process that allows the sorting, packing and transportation of the packages discussed above. As such, Bloom does not explicitly show “assignment proposal”. Even though, it is reasonably understood that in order to carry out the steps of sorting, packing, and transportation of packages efficiently, the planning step would have to be carried out.
Lehmann shows the behind the scenes planning process that is involved in the process of sorting, packing and transportation of the packages (col. 2, lines 63-65: By planning a stacking configuration, containers may be stacked in a particular order that will increase the stability and allow additional containers to be added. Col. 5, lines 40-50: In some embodiments, the items in an order may be divided into multiple item packages (i.e., shipment sets) for fulfillment by a planning service before item package fulfillment instructions are generated. In some implementations, the picking operations 140 may communicate with a central control system, and receive a sequence for which items of an item package should be picked and delivered to a sorting operation. The central control system, in some instances, may communicate with the stacking engine. Col. 5, lines 60-65: The stacking engine may provide the picking and sorting sequence for items to the central control system, directly to the picking operations 140 and/or directly to the sorting operations 150, so that the ordered items may be picked and sorted according to the sequence specified by the stacking engine.
Reference Bloom and Reference Lehmann are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to the field of managing the process of package delivery efficiently. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., B07C and G06Q. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lehmann, particularly the ability to see the planning process that is leading to the execution and delivery of the packages (Lehmann: col. 2, lines 63-65, Col. 5, lines 40-50, Col. 5, lines 60-65), in the disclosure of Reference Bloom, particularly in the efficient package delivery process (Bloom: [0010]-[0011]), in order to provide for a system that allows planning of a stacking configuration, containers may be stacked in a particular order that will increase the stability and allow additional containers to be added as taught by Reference Lehmann (see at least in (col. 2, lines 60-65), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lehmann for planning a stable stacking configuration for containers increases the speed at which containers may be stacked for shipping, reduces labor time needed to re-plan and/or rearrange containers as they are stacked, reduces the likelihood of a stacking configuration collapsing or falling over, and reduces the damage to products during shipping. Improving stacking speed, improving stacking configuration stability, reducing labor from re-work/re-stacking and reducing product damage during shipping reduces shipping costs of items and provides a safer working environment within the materials handling facility. In addition, with a stable stacking configuration, the space utilization of the transportation unit is increased and the transportation unit may be able to hold and transport additional containers, again resulting in reduced shipping costs so that managing the process of package delivery can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar managing the process of package delivery efficiently field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Bloom in view of Reference Lehmann, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom in view of Lehmann shows:
a second step of devising a sorting plan for the packages at a relay base on the basis of the created assignment proposal for each transportation delivery instruction (Bloom shows: [0016]: At the associated destination RDC, the transported returns package can be sorted and grouped by the RDC identifier associated with the returns local market identifier identified for the returns package for bulk delivery to an origination RDC associated with the identified RDC identifier. The sorted and grouped returns package can be transported from the associated destination RDC to the associated origination RDC. At the associated origination RDC, the transported returns package can be sorted by the identified returns local market identifier of the returns package. At the associated origination RDC, the sorted returns package can be sorted and grouped according to the identified returns facility identifier of the sorted returns package for bulk delivery to a returns facility associated with the returns facility identifier. The sorted and grouped returns package can be delivered to the associated returns facility. [0021]: The bulk delivered package can then be transported from the retailer fulfillment site to an origination RDC, where the transported bulk delivered package can be sorted and grouped based on its determined destination RDC. The bulk delivered package can be transported from the origination RDC to the determined destination RDC. At the destination RDC, the transported bulk delivered package can then be sorted and grouped for bulk delivery by its previously determined destination centralized pickup location or destination local distribution hub); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom in view of Lehmann shows:
a third step calculating sorting times of sorting tasks at the relay base according to the sorting plan and evaluating the transportation delivery plan based on a calculation result, the sorting time being calculated by using a calculation method according to a package sorting ability to sort the packages at the relay base (Bloom: [0076] Following step 1100, cases of items can be picked, labeled, and prepared for shipment to fulfill the orders in step 1102. Prior to the scheduled ePD shipment pick-up, retailers can fulfill all of their customer orders that are ready to ship that day, preparing them for shipment. A retailer can pick items in batches at different times throughout the day to prepare the shipment if the shipment proves to be too large to be prepared at one time. There can be several different sorting processes which can be employed in the ePD Delivery Process. In one embodiment of the invention, a case sorting process can be used. The term "case" will be referred to throughout this document to describe a box or other container filled with a standard quantity of a particular SKU of a retailer's product. The word "situation" will be used to describe different occurrences or situations. Some retailers identify their products by SKU (stock keeping unit) numbers, while others may use other item identifiers to identify them. The term "SKU" and common item identifier will be used synonymously throughout this disclosure to refer to all types of item identifiers, but it should readily be understood that the term common item identifier is a more generic term and encompasses SKU. SKU's are well known in the art. [0077]: The ePD Delivery Process can save retailers labor costs, packing material costs, and can reduce the lead-time needed to prepare shipments. Here, it is reasonably understood that you have calculate the lead time to be able to reduce the lead time. Bloom: [0021] Alternately, the step of delivering the package in bulk to the destination centralized pickup location can further include, creating the bulk delivered package at a retailer fulfillment site, the bulk delivered package containing at least one ordered item organized for a specific recipient. In a further aspect of the invention, either a specified destination centralized pickup location or a destination local distribution hub can be determined for the bulk delivery of the package. Similarly, a destination RDC for the bulk delivered package can also be determined. The bulk delivered package can then be transported from the retailer fulfillment site to an origination RDC, where the transported bulk delivered package can be sorted and grouped based on its determined destination RDC. The bulk delivered package can be transported from the origination RDC to the determined destination RDC. At the destination RDC, the transported bulk delivered package can then be sorted and grouped for bulk delivery by its previously determined destination centralized pickup location or destination local distribution hub. The bulk delivered package can be delivered to the previously determined pickup location and or the local distribution hub in bulk with the other bulk delivered packages with which it has been grouped. [0022]: Based on the determined specified destination, the bulk delivered packages can be sorted and grouped at the retailer fulfillment site for bulk delivery. The packages can be delivered in bulk from the retailer fulfillment site to the determined specified destination. [0027]: The delivery means for delivering of the packages in bulk can include a means for sorting at a RDC location, items received from suppliers, which can include but are not limited to, retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors, delivered to the origination RDC location. The items can be destined for recipients and can be organized by a common item identifier or SKU.),
Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom in view of Lehmann shows:
a fourth step of changing the sorting plan or modifying the assignment proposal, based on an evaluation result of the transportation delivery plan, so that the sorting task for the respective packages will be completed at the relay base before a departure of the service trip for a connecting destination assigned to each of the transportation delivery instructions (Bloom: [0021] Alternately, the step of delivering the package in bulk to the destination centralized pickup location can further include, creating the bulk delivered package at a retailer fulfillment site, the bulk delivered package containing at least one ordered item organized for a specific recipient. In a further aspect of the invention, either a specified destination centralized pickup location or a destination local distribution hub can be determined for the bulk delivery of the package. Similarly, a destination RDC for the bulk delivered package can also be determined. The bulk delivered package can then be transported from the retailer fulfillment site to an origination RDC, where the transported bulk delivered package can be sorted and grouped based on its determined destination RDC. The bulk delivered package can be transported from the origination RDC to the determined destination RDC. At the destination RDC, the transported bulk delivered package can then be sorted and grouped for bulk delivery by its previously determined destination centralized pickup location or destination local distribution hub. The bulk delivered package can be delivered to the previously determined pickup location and or the local distribution hub in bulk with the other bulk delivered packages with which it has been grouped. [0022]: Based on the determined specified destination, the bulk delivered packages can be sorted and grouped at the retailer fulfillment site for bulk delivery. The packages can be delivered in bulk from the retailer fulfillment site to the determined specified destination. [0027]: The delivery means for delivering of the packages in bulk can include a means for sorting at a RDC location, items received from suppliers, which can include but are not limited to, retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors, delivered to the origination RDC location. The items can be destined for recipients and can be organized by a common item identifier or SKU.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom in view of Lehmann shows:
wherein the package sorting ability depends on a time of day defined by a start time and an end time, as a time slot, among a plurality of time slots for the relay base, such that the relay base has different sorting abilities based on the time slots (Bloom: [0021] Alternately, the step of delivering the package in bulk to the destination centralized pickup location can further include, creating the bulk delivered package at a retailer fulfillment site, the bulk delivered package containing at least one ordered item organized for a specific recipient. In a further aspect of the invention, either a specified destination centralized pickup location or a destination local distribution hub can be determined for the bulk delivery of the package. Similarly, a destination RDC for the bulk delivered package can also be determined. The bulk delivered package can then be transported from the retailer fulfillment site to an origination RDC, where the transported bulk delivered package can be sorted and grouped based on its determined destination RDC. The bulk delivered package can be transported from the origination RDC to the determined destination RDC. At the destination RDC, the transported bulk delivered package can then be sorted and grouped for bulk delivery by its previously determined destination centralized pickup location or destination local distribution hub. The bulk delivered package can be delivered to the previously determined pickup location and or the local distribution hub in bulk with the other bulk delivered packages with which it has been grouped. [0022]: Based on the determined specified destination, the bulk delivered packages can be sorted and grouped at the retailer fulfillment site for bulk delivery. The packages can be delivered in bulk from the retailer fulfillment site to the determined specified destination. [0027]: The delivery means for delivering of the packages in bulk can include a means for sorting at a RDC location, items received from suppliers, which can include but are not limited to, retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors, delivered to the origination RDC location. The items can be destined for recipients and can be organized by a common item identifier or SKU. [0131] Two situations which can result in a case being physically located on the local market sort conveyor (24), but logically associated with a CDC sort conveyor (42) will be discussed here as an illustrative example. One situation in which this can occur is when a case is picked from a CDC sort conveyor (42) and placed back on to the local market sort conveyor (24) without being scanned to initiate a reverse local market sort pick. Another situation in which it can occur is when a case is scanned on the local market sort conveyor (24), but is not physically picked from that conveyor (24) to a CDC sort conveyor (42). Where a case having a Local Market Id because of either situation is traveling around on the local market sort conveyor (24) and is scanned, the Local Market Sort Program (326) can process that case as a corrective local market sort pick. The Local Market Sort Program (326) can update the Local Market Id value on the Case record 1208 of the scanned case to the value associated with the current CDC sort conveyor (42) and can sound, for example, a pick confirmation tone. Upon hearing the pick confirmation tone (or recognizing another indication that a case should be picked), the worker can pick the case from the local market sort conveyor (24) and place it on the CDC sort conveyor (42). In updating the Local Market Id on the Case record 1208 of the scanned case, the Local Market Sort program (326) can correct the error that existed in the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222 by reducing the Quantity of that ePD Retailer Id-SKU combination for the local market to which it was being credited incorrectly. At the same time the Local Market Sort program (326) can correctly update the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222 for the local market of the current CDC sort conveyor (42) as the case is picked and placed on that conveyor (42). [0132] There can, however, be one exception to the normal result of a corrective local market sort pick. If a case on the local market sort conveyor (24) already has a Status such as "CDC sort" and a Local Market Id, and the worker scanning the case happens to be working at the CDC sort conveyor (42) identified by the same Local Market Id as the one on the Case record 1208 of the scanned case, then the program (326) can process the scanned case as a reverse local market sort pick instead of a corrective local market sort pick. The Local Market Sort program (326) can remove the Local Market Id from the Case record 1208 and sound, for example, a pick confirmation as the worker picks the case from the local market sort conveyor (24) to the CDC sort conveyor (42). The result of this action can actually switch the database from being in error in one direction to being in error in the opposite direction. Before the case was scanned and picked, the database could have incorrectly included the quantity of the case in the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222, when the case was not physically on the CDC sort conveyor (42) of that local market. After the case is scanned and picked, the case can physically be on the CDC sort conveyor (42), but the database can no longer be including the quantity of that case in the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222. This error can be corrected the first time the case is scanned during a CDC sort processing step 1120.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom in view of Lehmann shows:
wherein the package sorting ability is based on a task time per unit, a predetermined sorting destination coefficient, a fixed task time indicating a preparation time for a task, and an upper limit quantity of packages to be sorted by sorting equipment of the relay base (Bloom: [0076] Following step 1100, cases of items can be picked, labeled, and prepared for shipment to fulfill the orders in step 1102. Prior to the scheduled ePD shipment pick-up, retailers can fulfill all of their customer orders that are ready to ship that day, preparing them for shipment. A retailer can pick items in batches at different times throughout the day to prepare the shipment if the shipment proves to be too large to be prepared at one time. There can be several different sorting processes which can be employed in the ePD Delivery Process. In one embodiment of the invention, a case sorting process can be used. The term "case" will be referred to throughout this document to describe a box or other container filled with a standard quantity of a particular SKU of a retailer's product. The word "situation" will be used to describe different occurrences or situations. Some retailers identify their products by SKU (stock keeping unit) numbers, while others may use other item identifiers to identify them. The term "SKU" and common item identifier will be used synonymously throughout this disclosure to refer to all types of item identifiers, but it should readily be understood that the term common item identifier is a more generic term and encompasses SKU. SKU's are well known in the art. [0077] In accordance with this embodiment, a retailer can pick (retrieve from warehouse storage locations) items by total SKU quantity rather than order by order. Unlike the existing Internet retailer order picking methods, the ePD Delivery Process does not require a retailer to sort items into customer orders or even to break cases to fulfill customer orders. This is because items can be shipped out by the caseload to their initial destination, the shipper's origination RDC 1170 (the shipper's nearest RDC to the retailer's fulfillment site 1194). This efficient shipping process can also reduce the amount of packaging materials and available trailer space required for shipment, assuming that same SKU items can be packed together into cases more efficiently than different SKU items can be packed into packages for each customer. The ePD Delivery Process can save retailers labor costs, packing material costs, and can reduce the lead-time needed to prepare shipments. [0339]: In this embodiment, automated programs and machinery can be used, for example, in place of workers to perform the part of the RDC sort in which cases bound for the current RDC can be picked from the outbound section of the RDC sort conveyor (18) to the local market sort conveyor (24). Another example, in which automated programs and machinery can be used is to replace one or more workers that regulate the flow of cases from the RDC inbound conveyor (34) to the local market sort conveyor (24) by moving the case diverting section of the RDC inbound conveyor (38) at the right times. Automated sorting and picking programs of this nature can also be used to perform the local market sort function and CDC sort function. [0131] Two situations which can result in a case being physically located on the local market sort conveyor (24), but logically associated with a CDC sort conveyor (42) will be discussed here as an illustrative example. One situation in which this can occur is when a case is picked from a CDC sort conveyor (42) and placed back on to the local market sort conveyor (24) without being scanned to initiate a reverse local market sort pick. Another situation in which it can occur is when a case is scanned on the local market sort conveyor (24), but is not physically picked from that conveyor (24) to a CDC sort conveyor (42). Where a case having a Local Market Id because of either situation is traveling around on the local market sort conveyor (24) and is scanned, the Local Market Sort Program (326) can process that case as a corrective local market sort pick. The Local Market Sort Program (326) can update the Local Market Id value on the Case record 1208 of the scanned case to the value associated with the current CDC sort conveyor (42) and can sound, for example, a pick confirmation tone. Upon hearing the pick confirmation tone (or recognizing another indication that a case should be picked), the worker can pick the case from the local market sort conveyor (24) and place it on the CDC sort conveyor (42). In updating the Local Market Id on the Case record 1208 of the scanned case, the Local Market Sort program (326) can correct the error that existed in the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222 by reducing the Quantity of that ePD Retailer Id-SKU combination for the local market to which it was being credited incorrectly. At the same time the Local Market Sort program (326) can correctly update the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222 for the local market of the current CDC sort conveyor (42) as the case is picked and placed on that conveyor (42). [0132] There can, however, be one exception to the normal result of a corrective local market sort pick. If a case on the local market sort conveyor (24) already has a Status such as "CDC sort" and a Local Market Id, and the worker scanning the case happens to be working at the CDC sort conveyor (42) identified by the same Local Market Id as the one on the Case record 1208 of the scanned case, then the program (326) can process the scanned case as a reverse local market sort pick instead of a corrective local market sort pick. The Local Market Sort program (326) can remove the Local Market Id from the Case record 1208 and sound, for example, a pick confirmation as the worker picks the case from the local market sort conveyor (24) to the CDC sort conveyor (42). The result of this action can actually switch the database from being in error in one direction to being in error in the opposite direction. Before the case was scanned and picked, the database could have incorrectly included the quantity of the case in the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222, when the case was not physically on the CDC sort conveyor (42) of that local market. After the case is scanned and picked, the case can physically be on the CDC sort conveyor (42), but the database can no longer be including the quantity of that case in the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222. This error can be corrected the first time the case is scanned during a CDC sort processing step 1120. [0339] In still a further embodiment of the invention, cases, CDC outbound packages, item return packages, and/or bulk delivered packages can be sorted, picked, and/or redirected using automated sorting and picking equipment and programs to move them through a RDC to the places where they can be loaded into RDC shipments, used to create bulk delivered packages, loaded into delivery shipments, or loaded into RDC returns shipments. Automated equipment including optical reading devices mounted near or on conveyors carrying the cases and different types of packages can read barcode or other imprinted formats on the case labels and different package labels to determine if a case or package should be picked. If an automated picking program determines that a case or package should be picked from a conveyor or redirected to another conveyor, based upon the data read from the optical reading device, it can initiate a mechanical device to pick or redirect the case or package from the conveyor. In this embodiment, automated programs and machinery can be used, for example, in place of workers to perform the part of the RDC sort in which cases bound for the current RDC can be picked from the outbound section of the RDC sort conveyor (18) to the local market sort conveyor (24). Another example, in which automated programs and machinery can be used is to replace one or more workers that regulate the flow of cases from the RDC inbound conveyor (34) to the local market sort conveyor (24) by moving the case diverting section of the RDC inbound conveyor (38) at the right times. Automated sorting and picking programs of this nature can also be used to perform the local market sort function and CDC sort function.).
As per claims 2 and 8: Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom in view of Lehmann shows:
wherein in the first step, the transportation and delivery planning apparatus creates the assignment proposal according to a specified optimization method using a previously designated index as an objective variable (It should be noted that the above claim limitation is really broad. It is unclear what the applicants mean by “specified optimization method”? or “using a previously designated index as an objective variable”. It seems like the claim is missing steps to clarify to one of ordinary skill in the art the scope of the above claim.
In light of this, Bloom: [0207]: The Delivery Shipment Program (342) can track the bin capacity shortage of each Bin Size-Temperature Code combination in a program variable. If bins are available to be reserved for the entire Quantity of a Package Size-Temperature Code combination, the program variable holding the bin capacity shortage for the corresponding Bin Size-Temperature Code combination can be zero. The ePD Delivery Application can allow different shippers to reserve bin space in a CDC 1190-1, as there may be multiple shippers shipping bulk delivered packages from different destination RDC's (the RDC's of shippers other than the one shipper depicted in the illustrative example of FIG. 2 are not shown) to the same CDC 1190-1. In another embodiment of the invention, a given CDC can be run by a single shipper, and can receive delivery shipments from one destination RDC 1180-1 only, negating the need to reserve bin space. [0214]: As it finishes effectively making all the bin configuration adjustments that it is able to make to resolve a bin capacity shortage, the Configuration Adjustments Report Program (344) can continue to save the remaining bin capacity shortage value for each Package Size-Temperature Code combination in a program variable. [0217]: The Shipment Adjustments Report Program (345) can validate that the value of each bin capacity shortage program variable has been decremented to zero and can sound a confirmation tone.).
As per claims 4 and 10: Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom in view of Lehmann shows:
wherein in the third step, the transportation and delivery planning apparatus calculates the sorting time by using the calculation method according to the package sorting ability at the relay base, depending on whether the package sorting ability at the relay base corresponds to any one of following cases (Bloom: [0021] Alternately, the step of delivering the package in bulk to the destination centralized pickup location can further include, creating the bulk delivered package at a retailer fulfillment site, the bulk delivered package containing at least one ordered item organized for a specific recipient. In a further aspect of the invention, either a specified destination centralized pickup location or a destination local distribution hub can be determined for the bulk delivery of the package. Similarly, a destination RDC for the bulk delivered package can also be determined. The bulk delivered package can then be transported from the retailer fulfillment site to an origination RDC, where the transported bulk delivered package can be sorted and grouped based on its determined destination RDC. The bulk delivered package can be transported from the origination RDC to the determined destination RDC. At the destination RDC, the transported bulk delivered package can then be sorted and grouped for bulk delivery by its previously determined destination centralized pickup location or destination local distribution hub. The bulk delivered package can be delivered to the previously determined pickup location and or the local distribution hub in bulk with the other bulk delivered packages with which it has been grouped. [0022]: Based on the determined specified destination, the bulk delivered packages can be sorted and grouped at the retailer fulfillment site for bulk delivery. The packages can be delivered in bulk from the retailer fulfillment site to the determined specified destination. [0027]: The delivery means for delivering of the packages in bulk can include a means for sorting at a RDC location, items received from suppliers, which can include but are not limited to, retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors, delivered to the origination RDC location. The items can be destined for recipients and can be organized by a common item identifier or SKU.):
a case where the sorting time varies according to a quantity of packages to be processed simultaneously (Bloom: [0033] The step of transporting containers of items to the distribution center to replenish the items used to create a package can be further comprised of the steps of decrementing the inventory of items on hand at the distribution center, comparing the decremented item inventory against a defined minimum inventory replenishment quantity to determine whether an additional quantity of the decremented item should be acquired, and communicating a request to acquire the additional quantity of the decremented item to a fulfillment location for the item when the comparison indicates that the inventory of the decremented item at the distribution center is less than or equal to a defined minimum inventory replenishment quantity. The communicated request for the decremented item can be fulfilled at the fulfillment location for that item and transported to the distribution center that communicated the request. The fulfilled items can be received at the distribution center and the on-hand inventory of the received item at the distribution center can be incremented. The transported quantity of the fulfilled items can be organized by an item identifier. [0063]: In step 1100, these orders can be captured by the retailer. Following capture of the orders, in step 1102, retailers can fill the orders by picking cases of the ordered items to meet the total ordered quantity of each item across all unfilled orders. [0076]: A retailer can pick items in batches at different times throughout the day to prepare the shipment if the shipment proves to be too large to be prepared at one time. There can be several different sorting processes which can be employed in the ePD Delivery Process. In one embodiment of the invention, a case sorting process can be used. The term "case" will be referred to throughout this document to describe a box or other container filled with a standard quantity of a particular SKU of a retailer's product. [0080]: It can then sort and group the order information by SKU and RDC Id to create a data view of the information containing the total quantities of each SKU bound for each destination RDC (for example 1180-1, 1180-2, 1180-3, 1180-4, and 1170)--a SKU data view 1204. Data views, as referred to throughout this disclosure, can be similar in structure and function to a data table, but the data in the fields of a data view can be derived by selecting and manipulating data from fields in one or more data tables. The data in the records of a data view can be dynamic, meaning that it can change as data changes on the tables from which that data view can be derived. The program (310) can then divide the total quantities per SKU-RDC Id combination by the standard case quantity for that SKU, as listed on the SKU table 1250, to create another view of the data listing the total number of cases and items needed per SKU, per RDC--a Case data view 1206. The remainders of the division can be listed as items. For example, if the total quantity of SKU 123456789 bound for RDC Id AA001=60 and the standard quantity per case for SKU 123456789 is 16, then the Case data view would show SKU: 123456789, RDC Id: AA001, Case Quantity: 3, Item Quantity: 12);
a case where the sorting time varies according to the quantity of packages to be processed simultaneously and a number of destinations (Bloom: [0033] The step of transporting containers of items to the distribution center to replenish the items used to create a package can be further comprised of the steps of decrementing the inventory of items on hand at the distribution center, comparing the decremented item inventory against a defined minimum inventory replenishment quantity to determine whether an additional quantity of the decremented item should be acquired, and communicating a request to acquire the additional quantity of the decremented item to a fulfillment location for the item when the comparison indicates that the inventory of the decremented item at the distribution center is less than or equal to a defined minimum inventory replenishment quantity. The communicated request for the decremented item can be fulfilled at the fulfillment location for that item and transported to the distribution center that communicated the request. The fulfilled items can be received at the distribution center and the on-hand inventory of the received item at the distribution center can be incremented. The transported quantity of the fulfilled items can be organized by an item identifier. [0063]: In step 1100, these orders can be captured by the retailer. Following capture of the orders, in step 1102, retailers can fill the orders by picking cases of the ordered items to meet the total ordered quantity of each item across all unfilled orders. [0076]: A retailer can pick items in batches at different times throughout the day to prepare the shipment if the shipment proves to be too large to be prepared at one time. There can be several different sorting processes which can be employed in the ePD Delivery Process. In one embodiment of the invention, a case sorting process can be used. The term "case" will be referred to throughout this document to describe a box or other container filled with a standard quantity of a particular SKU of a retailer's product. [0080]: It can then sort and group the order information by SKU and RDC Id to create a data view of the information containing the total quantities of each SKU bound for each destination RDC (for example 1180-1, 1180-2, 1180-3, 1180-4, and 1170)--a SKU data view 1204. Data views, as referred to throughout this disclosure, can be similar in structure and function to a data table, but the data in the fields of a data view can be derived by selecting and manipulating data from fields in one or more data tables. The data in the records of a data view can be dynamic, meaning that it can change as data changes on the tables from which that data view can be derived. The program (310) can then divide the total quantities per SKU-RDC Id combination by the standard case quantity for that SKU, as listed on the SKU table 1250, to create another view of the data listing the total number of cases and items needed per SKU, per RDC--a Case data view 1206. The remainders of the division can be listed as items. For example, if the total quantity of SKU 123456789 bound for RDC Id AA001=60 and the standard quantity per case for SKU 123456789 is 16, then the Case data view would show SKU: 123456789, RDC Id: AA001, Case Quantity: 3, Item Quantity: 12); and
a case where the sorting time varies according to the quantity of packages to be processed simultaneously, the number of destinations (Bloom: [0033] The step of transporting containers of items to the distribution center to replenish the items used to create a package can be further comprised of the steps of decrementing the inventory of items on hand at the distribution center, comparing the decremented item inventory against a defined minimum inventory replenishment quantity to determine whether an additional quantity of the decremented item should be acquired, and communicating a request to acquire the additional quantity of the decremented item to a fulfillment location for the item when the comparison indicates that the inventory of the decremented item at the distribution center is less than or equal to a defined minimum inventory replenishment quantity. The communicated request for the decremented item can be fulfilled at the fulfillment location for that item and transported to the distribution center that communicated the request. The fulfilled items can be received at the distribution center and the on-hand inventory of the received item at the distribution center can be incremented. The transported quantity of the fulfilled items can be organized by an item identifier. [0063]: In step 1100, these orders can be captured by the retailer. Following capture of the orders, in step 1102, retailers can fill the orders by picking cases of the ordered items to meet the total ordered quantity of each item across all unfilled orders. [0076]: A retailer can pick items in batches at different times throughout the day to prepare the shipment if the shipment proves to be too large to be prepared at one time. There can be several different sorting processes which can be employed in the ePD Delivery Process. In one embodiment of the invention, a case sorting process can be used. The term "case" will be referred to throughout this document to describe a box or other container filled with a standard quantity of a particular SKU of a retailer's product. [0080]: It can then sort and group the order information by SKU and RDC Id to create a data view of the information containing the total quantities of each SKU bound for each destination RDC (for example 1180-1, 1180-2, 1180-3, 1180-4, and 1170)--a SKU data view 1204. Data views, as referred to throughout this disclosure, can be similar in structure and function to a data table, but the data in the fields of a data view can be derived by selecting and manipulating data from fields in one or more data tables. The data in the records of a data view can be dynamic, meaning that it can change as data changes on the tables from which that data view can be derived. The program (310) can then divide the total quantities per SKU-RDC Id combination by the standard case quantity for that SKU, as listed on the SKU table 1250, to create another view of the data listing the total number of cases and items needed per SKU, per RDC--a Case data view 1206. The remainders of the division can be listed as items. For example, if the total quantity of SKU 123456789 bound for RDC Id AA001=60 and the standard quantity per case for SKU 123456789 is 16, then the Case data view would show SKU: 123456789, RDC Id: AA001, Case Quantity: 3, Item Quantity: 12), and
an upper limit quantity of packages to be sorted by sorting equipment (Bloom: [0109] The teams of RDC workers can continue to pick, scan, and load cases from the conveyor (18) onto the dock conveyor (22) until a full RDC shipment is compiled. A full RDC shipment can be compiled when the cases on the dock conveyor (22) are stacked up as high as the shipment height limit, which can be marked on both sides of the shipping dock door opening (52), as wide as can fit between the side edges of the dock conveyor (22), and as long as can fit between the dock conveyor extension against which the cases can be pressed up at the dock conveyor's (22) front edge and the shipment limit marking toward the back end of the dock conveyor (22). While workers are building the RDC shipment, scanning each case picked from the outbound section of the RDC sort conveyor (18), the RDC Shipment Program (318) can be validating that the RDC Id associated with each scanned case matches the RDC Id of the current RDC Shipment record 1216 and the first case scanned. [0268] If both the primary and secondary contact attempts are unsuccessful, the Notification Program (360) can proceed to process the next record listed on the Notification Queue table 1311. The Notification Program (360) can attempt to process the unsuccessful record 1311 again on each successive pass it makes through the Notification Queue table 1311, until the record 1311 gets updated as successful or the Number of Primary Attempts and Number of Secondary Attempts on the record 1311 reach a predefined limit. Once the predefined limits in the number of attempts fields are reached, the Notification Program (360) can reset the values in both number of attempts fields to zero and can reset the Next Contact Date/Time to a future date/time, which can be a predefined time interval ahead of the current date/time.).
As per claims 6 and 12: Regarding the claim limitations below, Bloom in view of Lehmann shows:
wherein in the third step, the transportation and delivery planning apparatus displays the assignment proposal and the sorting plan which are finally obtained.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Bloom shows “wherein in the third step, the transportation and delivery planning apparatus displays … and the sorting plan which are finally obtained” ([0010] The invention discloses a method and system for efficient bulk package delivery for recipients. The method for efficient bulk package delivery for recipients can include the steps of delivering the packages in bulk for a plurality of recipients in a single delivery stop to a destination centralized pickup location and loading the bulk delivered packages randomly into an automated system of storage locker bins. The step of delivering the packages in bulk for a plurality of recipients can further include, delivering items destined for recipients of the packages. The step of delivering the packages in bulk can include the step of sorting at an central location, for example an origination regional distribution center (RDC), items received from a plurality of retailers delivered to the origination RDC location, the items being organized by a common item identifier and destined for a plurality of recipients. [0011] The step of sorting the received items at the origination RDC location can be further comprised of the steps of identifying the received items based on their destination centralized pickup location, or their destination local distribution hub. Additionally, the received items can be identified to a destination RDC location. The identified items which are organized by a common item identifier can be sorted and grouped based on the identified destination RDC.)
However, Bloom does not explicitly show the behind the scenes planning process that allows the sorting, packing and transportation of the packages discussed above. As such, Bloom does not explicitly show “assignment proposal”. Even though, it is reasonably understood that in order to carry out the steps of sorting, packing, and transportation of packages efficiently, the planning step would have to be carried out.
Lehmann shows the behind the scenes planning process that is involved in the process of sorting, packing and transportation of the packages (col. 2, lines 63-65: By planning a stacking configuration, containers may be stacked in a particular order that will increase the stability and allow additional containers to be added. Col. 5, lines 40-50: In some embodiments, the items in an order may be divided into multiple item packages (i.e., shipment sets) for fulfillment by a planning service before item package fulfillment instructions are generated. In some implementations, the picking operations 140 may communicate with a central control system, and receive a sequence for which items of an item package should be picked and delivered to a sorting operation. The central control system, in some instances, may communicate with the stacking engine. Col. 5, lines 60-65: The stacking engine may provide the picking and sorting sequence for items to the central control system, directly to the picking operations 140 and/or directly to the sorting operations 150, so that the ordered items may be picked and sorted according to the sequence specified by the stacking engine.
Reference Bloom and Reference Lehmann are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to the field of managing the process of package delivery efficiently. Further, said references are part of the same classification, i.e., B07C and G06Q. Lastly, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lehmann, particularly the ability to see the planning process that is leading to the execution and delivery of the packages (Lehmann: col. 2, lines 63-65, Col. 5, lines 40-50, Col. 5, lines 60-65), in the disclosure of Reference Bloom, particularly in the efficient package delivery process (Bloom: [0010]-[0011]), in order to provide for a system that allows planning of a stacking configuration, containers may be stacked in a particular order that will increase the stability and allow additional containers to be added as taught by Reference Lehmann (see at least in (col. 2, lines 60-65), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lehmann for planning a stable stacking configuration for containers increases the speed at which containers may be stacked for shipping, reduces labor time needed to re-plan and/or rearrange containers as they are stacked, reduces the likelihood of a stacking configuration collapsing or falling over, and reduces the damage to products during shipping. Improving stacking speed, improving stacking configuration stability, reducing labor from re-work/re-stacking and reducing product damage during shipping reduces shipping costs of items and provides a safer working environment within the materials handling facility. In addition, with a stable stacking configuration, the space utilization of the transportation unit is increased and the transportation unit may be able to hold and transport additional containers, again resulting in reduced shipping costs so that managing the process of package delivery can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar managing the process of package delivery efficiently field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Bloom in view of Reference Lehmann, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments made to previously presented claims.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicants’ argue on page(s) 8-10 of applicants remarks that “The improvement is also recited in the claims. For example, claim 1 recites "an evaluation determination unit that calculates sorting times of sorting tasks at the relay base according to the sorting plan and evaluates the transportation delivery plan based on a calculation result, the sorting time being calculated by using a calculation method according to a package sorting ability to sort the packages at the relay base, wherein the package sorting ability depends on a time of day defined by a start time and an end time, as a time slot, among a plurality of time slots for the relay base, such that the relay base has different sorting abilities based on the time slots, [and] wherein the package sorting ability is based on a task time per unit, a predetermined sorting destination coefficient, a fixed task time indicating a preparation time for a task, and an upper limit quantity of packages to be sorted by sorting equipment of the relay base (pg. 13-14)… For example, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the features of the claims (e.g., the combination of features of the claims is non-conventional and non-generic). See BASCOM Global." (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #1
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As is discussed in the 101 rejections above, the limitations applicants are arguing are part of the abstract idea discussed in Step 2A prong one above.
The claims above do not provide an improvement to actual technology or the computer itself. At best Original Spec [0007]-[0008] merely provides an improvement to the abstract idea itself. This however is not improvement to technology or the computer itself. Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(a) II stressing that: it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. As stated by MPEP 2106.04 I. reliance on “Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979” to state that a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery” [argued here at Remarks as] “does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry" further corroborated by “SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 BL 275354 (Fed. Cir. Aug.02, 2018)”: “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant”, [argued here at Remarks as] “those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter” [here improving abstract “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes”]. “An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. Simply said here, as in “SAP”, “no matter how much of [such] an advance in the field” “the claims [would] recite the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas” with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm. This is corroborated by “Versata Dev Grp, Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015” undelaying the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective vs improvement to actual technology. See MPEP 2106.04.
Further, still the characteristics described above such as the claims discussed above can be argued to be part of the abstract grouping implementable by physical aids such as pen and paper. Still Step 2A prong one in light of MPEP 2106.04 III and III.B, and as such can be considered a “Mental Process” in addition to being a “A Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.”
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicants’ argue on page(s) 11-13 of applicants remarks that “These elements are significant, at least because the claim includes a specific technique for improving the field of automatic planning of transportation and delivery planning by incorporating the time it takes (i.e., sorting time) for sorting to occur at respective relay bases based on a variable package sorting ability of the relay bases that varies according to a time slot of the day. Accordingly, the sum of the functions of the additional elements of Applicant's claim 1, at least when viewed as an ordered combination, are significantly more than when each is taken alone. Therefore, similar to the claims in BASCOM, Applicant's claim 1, at least as an ordered combination, includes a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of features comprising an inventive concept. As such, Applicant's claim 1 is not directed to routine, conventional, or well-known activities. Consequently, even if Applicant's claim 1 includes an abstract idea, the claim includes additional elements that singly and as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the mere abstract idea, and therefore, Applicant's claim 1 is patent-eligible for these reasons as well." (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #2
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It should be noted that the following discussion is in view of Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2016):
In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit agreed with the District Court's identification of the abstract idea being the "filtering content" found on the internet. The courts found that the abstract idea was a certain method of organizing human activity. However, the Federal Circuit held that the District Court did not properly perform step 2B of the two part Alice framework (or the Mayo test). The Federal Circuit court held that the additional elements in Bascom did amount to significantly more when considered as an ordered combination. The court held that the additional elements, such as, the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, when combined may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., an inventive concept.
In this instant case however, there is no installation of any application at a specific location, much less a customizing of features to the end users, but merely a highly general recitation of the additional elements in Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. In light of the specification, it should be noted that the components discussed above did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicants’ argue on page(s) 11-13 of applicants remarks that “However, Bloom does not disclose "an evaluation determination unit that calculates sorting times of sorting tasks at the relay base according to the sorting plan and evaluates the transportation delivery plan based on a calculation result, the sorting time being calculated by using a calculation method according to a package sorting ability to sort the packages at the relay base, wherein the package sorting ability depends on a time of day defined by a start time and an end time, as a time slot, among a plurality of time slots for the relay base, such that the relay base has different sorting abilities based on the time slots, wherein the package sorting ability is based on a task time per unit, a predetermined sorting destination coefficient, a fixed task time indicating a preparation time for a task, and an upper limit quantity of packages to be sorted by sorting equipment of the relay base," as set forth in claim 1. Lehman is relied upon for disclosing an "assignment proposal." However, resort to Lehman does not cure the deficiencies in Bloom. For at least the reasons presented herein, the cited combination of documents does not teach or suggest all of the elements of claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the cited combination of documents does not render independent claims 1 or 7 unpatentable, and respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 7." (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #3
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bloom: [0076] Following step 1100, cases of items can be picked, labeled, and prepared for shipment to fulfill the orders in step 1102. Prior to the scheduled ePD shipment pick-up, retailers can fulfill all of their customer orders that are ready to ship that day, preparing them for shipment. A retailer can pick items in batches at different times throughout the day to prepare the shipment if the shipment proves to be too large to be prepared at one time. There can be several different sorting processes which can be employed in the ePD Delivery Process. In one embodiment of the invention, a case sorting process can be used. The term "case" will be referred to throughout this document to describe a box or other container filled with a standard quantity of a particular SKU of a retailer's product. The word "situation" will be used to describe different occurrences or situations. Some retailers identify their products by SKU (stock keeping unit) numbers, while others may use other item identifiers to identify them. The term "SKU" and common item identifier will be used synonymously throughout this disclosure to refer to all types of item identifiers, but it should readily be understood that the term common item identifier is a more generic term and encompasses SKU. SKU's are well known in the art. [0077] In accordance with this embodiment, a retailer can pick (retrieve from warehouse storage locations) items by total SKU quantity rather than order by order. Unlike the existing Internet retailer order picking methods, the ePD Delivery Process does not require a retailer to sort items into customer orders or even to break cases to fulfill customer orders. This is because items can be shipped out by the caseload to their initial destination, the shipper's origination RDC 1170 (the shipper's nearest RDC to the retailer's fulfillment site 1194). This efficient shipping process can also reduce the amount of packaging materials and available trailer space required for shipment, assuming that same SKU items can be packed together into cases more efficiently than different SKU items can be packed into packages for each customer. The ePD Delivery Process can save retailers labor costs, packing material costs, and can reduce the lead-time needed to prepare shipments. [0339]: In this embodiment, automated programs and machinery can be used, for example, in place of workers to perform the part of the RDC sort in which cases bound for the current RDC can be picked from the outbound section of the RDC sort conveyor (18) to the local market sort conveyor (24). Another example, in which automated programs and machinery can be used is to replace one or more workers that regulate the flow of cases from the RDC inbound conveyor (34) to the local market sort conveyor (24) by moving the case diverting section of the RDC inbound conveyor (38) at the right times. Automated sorting and picking programs of this nature can also be used to perform the local market sort function and CDC sort function. [0131] Two situations which can result in a case being physically located on the local market sort conveyor (24), but logically associated with a CDC sort conveyor (42) will be discussed here as an illustrative example. One situation in which this can occur is when a case is picked from a CDC sort conveyor (42) and placed back on to the local market sort conveyor (24) without being scanned to initiate a reverse local market sort pick. Another situation in which it can occur is when a case is scanned on the local market sort conveyor (24), but is not physically picked from that conveyor (24) to a CDC sort conveyor (42). Where a case having a Local Market Id because of either situation is traveling around on the local market sort conveyor (24) and is scanned, the Local Market Sort Program (326) can process that case as a corrective local market sort pick. The Local Market Sort Program (326) can update the Local Market Id value on the Case record 1208 of the scanned case to the value associated with the current CDC sort conveyor (42) and can sound, for example, a pick confirmation tone. Upon hearing the pick confirmation tone (or recognizing another indication that a case should be picked), the worker can pick the case from the local market sort conveyor (24) and place it on the CDC sort conveyor (42). In updating the Local Market Id on the Case record 1208 of the scanned case, the Local Market Sort program (326) can correct the error that existed in the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222 by reducing the Quantity of that ePD Retailer Id-SKU combination for the local market to which it was being credited incorrectly. At the same time the Local Market Sort program (326) can correctly update the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222 for the local market of the current CDC sort conveyor (42) as the case is picked and placed on that conveyor (42). [0132] There can, however, be one exception to the normal result of a corrective local market sort pick. If a case on the local market sort conveyor (24) already has a Status such as "CDC sort" and a Local Market Id, and the worker scanning the case happens to be working at the CDC sort conveyor (42) identified by the same Local Market Id as the one on the Case record 1208 of the scanned case, then the program (326) can process the scanned case as a reverse local market sort pick instead of a corrective local market sort pick. The Local Market Sort program (326) can remove the Local Market Id from the Case record 1208 and sound, for example, a pick confirmation as the worker picks the case from the local market sort conveyor (24) to the CDC sort conveyor (42). The result of this action can actually switch the database from being in error in one direction to being in error in the opposite direction. Before the case was scanned and picked, the database could have incorrectly included the quantity of the case in the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222, when the case was not physically on the CDC sort conveyor (42) of that local market. After the case is scanned and picked, the case can physically be on the CDC sort conveyor (42), but the database can no longer be including the quantity of that case in the Local Market Case Inventory data view 1222. This error can be corrected the first time the case is scanned during a CDC sort processing step 1120. [0339] In still a further embodiment of the invention, cases, CDC outbound packages, item return packages, and/or bulk delivered packages can be sorted, picked, and/or redirected using automated sorting and picking equipment and programs to move them through a RDC to the places where they can be loaded into RDC shipments, used to create bulk delivered packages, loaded into delivery shipments, or loaded into RDC returns shipments. Automated equipment including optical reading devices mounted near or on conveyors carrying the cases and different types of packages can read barcode or other imprinted formats on the case labels and different package labels to determine if a case or package should be picked. If an automated picking program determines that a case or package should be picked from a conveyor or redirected to another conveyor, based upon the data read from the optical reading device, it can initiate a mechanical device to pick or redirect the case or package from the conveyor. In this embodiment, automated programs and machinery can be used, for example, in place of workers to perform the part of the RDC sort in which cases bound for the current RDC can be picked from the outbound section of the RDC sort conveyor (18) to the local market sort conveyor (24). Another example, in which automated programs and machinery can be used is to replace one or more workers that regulate the flow of cases from the RDC inbound conveyor (34) to the local market sort conveyor (24) by moving the case diverting section of the RDC inbound conveyor (38) at the right times. Automated sorting and picking programs of this nature can also be used to perform the local market sort function and CDC sort function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Reference:
S. Omelianenko, Y. Kondratenko, G. Kondratenko and I. Sidenko, "Advanced System of Planning and Optimization of Cargo Delivery and Its IoT Application," 2019 3rd International Conference on Advanced Information and Communications Technologies (AICT), Lviv, Ukraine, 2019, pp. 302-307, doi: 10.1109/AIA CT.2019.8847744. This reference discloses researching and developing a system that not only solves transportation problems with time windows and cargo capacity constraints, but will also take into account and plan real-time workflow events, adhering to which drivers and companies are more profitable and reduce transport costs. The implementation of the proposed multistage hybrid algorithm allows to quickly accomplish goals and hours of service (HOS), for each driver individually, allows to automatically assess the risks and, if necessary, dynamically change, exclude and pick up orders. In addition, an overview of methods and algorithms for transport planning and optimization is carried out. Also, the IoT application of this system of planning and optimization of cargo delivery using electronic registration devices (ELDs) is considered.
Foreign Reference:
(JP 2022049239 A) Morimoto et al. This reference discloses a system to provide a planning system that can create an efficient delivery/collection plan. A planning system acquires an article subject to delivery/collection, a first base that is a delivery destination/a collection source, delivery means, a second base where the delivery means loads an article to be delivered, and information on a route connecting two of the first and second bases, acquires sorting conditions for grouping at the first base for delivering or collecting the article that can be stacked at the first base, which includes conditions of the area where the first base is located and conditions of possession status of unloading equipment owned by the first base, sorts the first base into a plurality of groups on the basis of the sorting conditions, acquires constraint conditions including weight and capacity limits for the delivery means, and creates a delivery/collection plan for the article by the delivery means that satisfies the constraint conditions for each group of the sorted first bases.
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 NANCY PRASAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3265. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/N.N.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624