Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on June 16, 2026. The Applicants’ Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-14, and 16-18 have been amended. Claims 3 and 12 have been canceled. Claims 19-20 are newly added.
The previous rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments necessitated any new grounds of rejection.
The previous rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn. The Examiner notes that claims 1-18 recite an abstract idea that is a mental process. However, the Examiner further notes that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. For example, claim 1 recites “identify that packaging is to be custom printed for the first customer order; evaluate multiple different print campaigns in relation to the first customer or the first customer order; select, based on the evaluating, a first print campaign, of the multiple different print campaigns, that has a campaign threshold relationship with at least one of the first customer and the at least one item; identify a first package fabrication pattern to be applied in fabricating a first package specific to the first customer order to receive the at least one item; identify a first print plan, of multiple different print plans, to be applied to the packaging based on the first customer and dependent on the first package fabrication pattern and establish the first print plan in accordance with the first print campaign and the first package fabrication pattern; and control the custom printing system, of the custom package fabrication system, to execute print instructions of the first print plan to apply printing to one or more surfaces of packaging material in printing to print the first print plan onto packaging material to provide custom printed packaging material specific to the first customer order.”
The combination of at least these additional elements uses the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, per page 12 of Applicants’ Reply dated June 16, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicants’ Reply”): “The system uses fabrication patterns to determine packaging and printing plan. This reflects technological coordination between fabrication and print systems, not mere information processing.”
Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue at pages 14-15 of Applicants’ Reply that Payauys does not disclose “identify a first package fabrication pattern to be applied in fabricating a first package” because Payauys “does not describe any type of package fabrication process. There is no discussion or suggestion in Payauys of package fabrication, and as such cannot describe any type of package fabrication pattern.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that the claims do not describe any portion of a package fabrication process except the printing of the pattern on the package. For example, there is no description of choosing materials for the packaging, measuring the materials so that the packaging will properly fit the product, constructing the packaging, etc. Instead, the claims focus solely on printing the pattern on the packaging. Similarly, Payauys discloses a “shipment container may be designed to provide information similar to retail packaging on the inside surfaces of the shipment container while providing customizable exterior surfaces.” (See Payauys, at least Abstract). The Examiner respectfully asserts that designing the graphics on a shipment container is one part of a “package fabrication process” because a generic shipping container is being adapted to hold a specific product by decorating the container with graphics and information related to the specific product it is designed to hold. Adapting the generic container to match a particular product is part of a process to create the specific container and thus is part of a package fabrication process. Thus, the Examiner respectfully asserts that Payauys discloses fabricating a package.
Applicants further assert at page 15 of Applicants’ Reply that the combination of Payauys and Schilling does not “describe at least the evaluation of multiple different print campaigns as a function of threshold relationships.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully asserts that a “print campaign” is not defined and so the Examiner has broadly interpreted a print campaign as one or more items. Multiple print campaigns therefore refer to multiple items. As the Examiner has noted below, Payauys discloses “evaluate multiple different print campaigns in relation to the first customer or the first customer order” because Payauys discloses a graphics content module that determines which custom graphics to print based on various information to associated with the order (See Payauys, at least col. 9, lines 65-67). Payauys further discloses that the graphics content module identifies messages, advertising, recommendations, and/or other personalized content to include in the customized graphics to be printed on the box. (See Payauys, at least col. 10, lines 10-23). The different messages, advertising, recommendations, and other personalized content are considered analogous to the multiple different print campaigns.
Regarding “a campaign threshold relationship,” the Examiner respectfully asserts that this term not defined and is broadly considered to be any relationship. In other words, with no defined threshold and no comparing of any particular quantity to a defined threshold, any relationship may meet the threshold. For example, in the claim element “select, based on the evaluating a first print campaign, of the multiple different print campaigns, that has a campaign threshold relationship with at least one of the first customer and the at least one item”, the Examiner notes that Payauys discloses a graphics content module that determines whether to include graphics that indicate the items inside of the box such as item information, images, etc. For example, when a box contains a toy helicopter, the graphics content module may include an image, text, or both to provide information about the item to the recipient of the box. (See Payauys, at least col. 10, lines 1-23). In this instance, the image of the item is selected based on what’s in the box, i.e., a threshold relationship with the item in the box.
Thus, Payauys discloses these limitations.
Applicants further argue at pages 15-16 of Applicants’ Reply that “the Office Action relies on the exact same section of Payauys (i.e., col. 8, lines 21-46) to suggest that Payauys describes both: identify a first package fabrication pattern to be applied in fabricating a first package specific to the first customer order to receive the at least one item; identify a first print plan, of multiple different print plans, to be applied to the packaging based on the first customer and dependent on the first package fabrication pattern. Applicant respectfully submits that this is factually unsupported and legally improper. These are distinct claim limitations directed to different aspects of the claims. By relying on the same passage to satisfy both limitations, the Office Action fails to identify separate teachings corresponding to each limitation, and effectively collapses two distinct elements into one, thereby reading limitations out of the claims.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted both in the previous office action and below, Payauys discloses identify a first package fabrication pattern to be applied in fabricating a first package specific to the first customer order to receive the at least one item (See Payauys, at least col. 8, lines 21-46, graphics content module selects customized graphics to print on shipment container based on input from order processing module and information from the box analyzer). Thus, the graphics content module selects which graphics to print on the shipment container, which corresponds to the package fabrication pattern.
Payauys further discloses identify a first print plan, of multiple different print plans, to be applied to the packaging based on the first customer and dependent on the first package fabrication pattern (See Payauys, at least col. 8, lines 21-46, graphics content module selects graphics including text, images, patterns, design, etc., and size and location including which surfaces of the packaging will receive the graphics; amount of graphics may be limited by size and dimensions of the shipment container, borders of printable areas, and/or surfaces available on the shipment container; if the shipment container is a smaller box, then the amount of graphics that can be printed on the box may be less than an amount of graphics that can be printed on a larger box; similarly, some surfaces may not be conductive for printing such as curved surfaces; graphical content module may modify the graphics content by resizing it and/or removing portions to accommodate printing on the selected exterior surfaces of the shipment container). The first print plan corresponds to how the graphics will be printed on the shipment container, i.e., the size and location, the amount of graphics, which surfaces of the shipment container to print on, etc. Thus, while the citation is the same, different portions of the citation correspond to the different limitations.
Applicants’ remaining arguments have been fully considered but they have either been addressed above or they are directed to the instantly amended claims and thus are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US 10,011,387 B1 to Payauys (hereinafter “Payauys”), in view of US 2018/0079588 A1 to Whittington et al. (hereinafter “Whittington”).
Claims 1 and 10: Payauys discloses a system and method so that a “shipment container may be designed to provide information similar to retail packaging on the inside surfaces of the shipment container while providing customizable exterior surfaces.” (See Payauys, at least Abstract). Payauys further discloses that the “interior surfaces may include content, graphics, text, and/or other information related to the contents of the shipment container. Initially, the exterior surfaces of the shipment container may be left primarily blank in anticipation of a later printing of customized graphics for a customer by a merchant or fulfillment center (FC) that prepares the shipment container for shipment to a customer.” (See Payauys, at least Abstract). Payauys further discloses:
an order fulfillment control system (See Payauys, at least col. 7, lines 20-25 and 48-55, computing architecture includes processor and computer readable media that stores various modules, applications, programs, or other data); and
a custom package fabrication (CPF) system communicatively coupled with the order fulfillment control system, wherein the custom package fabrication system comprises a custom printing system (See Payauys, at least col. 7, lines 20-25, computing architecture includes processor and computer readable media that stores various modules, applications, programs, or other data; col. 7, lines 48-55, order processing module; col. 8, lines 8-60, box analyzer, graphics content module, positioning module, printer module);
wherein the custom package fabrication system comprises a package customization control circuit (See Payauys, at least col. 7, lines 20-25, computing architecture includes processor and computer readable media that stores various modules, applications, programs, or other data; col. 8, lines 8-60, box analyzer, graphics content module, positioning module, printer module) to:
identify a first customer order of at least one item associated with a first customer of multiple different customers submitting different customer orders (See Payauys, at least col. 7, line 57-col. 8, line 8, order processing module populates shipment information based on information associated with an order; different purchasers make different selections regarding item they are purchasing; order processing module tracks the identifier associated with the shipment);
identify that packaging is to be custom printed for the first customer order (See Payauys, at least col. 8, lines 21-46, graphics content module selects customized graphics to print on shipment container based on input from order processing module and information from the box analyzer);
evaluate multiple different print campaigns in relation to the first customer or the first customer order (See Payauys, at least col. 9, lines 65-67, graphics content module determines which custom graphics to print based on various information to associated with the order; col. 10, lines 10-23, graphics content module identifies messages, advertising, recommendations, and/or other personalized content to include in the customized graphics to be printed on the box);
select, based on the evaluating, a first print campaign, of the multiple different print campaigns, that has a campaign threshold relationship with at least one of the first customer and the at least one item (See Payauys, at least col. 10, lines 1-23, graphics content module determines whether to include graphics that indicate the items inside of the box such as item information, images, etc.; when box contains a toy helicopter, graphics content module may include an image, text, or both to provide information about the second item to the recipient of the box; graphics are printed on the box; the Examiner notes that the image of the second item is selected based on the what’s in the box, i.e., a relationship with the at least one item); and
identify a first package fabrication pattern to be applied in fabricating a first package specific to the first customer order to receive the at least one item (See Payauys, at least col. 8, lines 21-46, graphics content module selects customized graphics to print on shipment container based on input from order processing module and information from the box analyzer);
identify a first print plan, of multiple different print plans, to be applied to the packaging based on the first customer and dependent on the first package fabrication pattern (See Payauys, at least col. 8, lines 21-46, graphics content module selects graphics including text, images, patterns, design, etc., and size and location including which surfaces of the packaging will receive the graphics; amount of graphics may be limited by size and dimensions of the shipment container, borders of printable areas, and/or surfaces available on the shipment container; if the shipment container is a smaller box, then the amount of graphics that can be printed on the box may be less than an amount of graphics that can be printed on a larger box; similarly, some surfaces may not be conductive for printing such as curved surfaces; graphical content module may modify the graphics content by resizing it and/or removing portions to accommodate printing on the selected exterior surfaces of the shipment container); and establish the first print plan in accordance with the first print campaign and the first package fabrication pattern (See Payauys, at least col. 10, lines 10-23, when box contains a toy helicopter, graphics content module may include an image, text, or both to provide information about the second item to the recipient of the box; graphics are printed on the box); and
control the custom printing system, of the custom package fabrication system, to execute print instructions of the first print plan to apply printing to one or more surfaces of packaging material in printing the first print plan onto packaging material to provide custom printed packaging material specific to the first customer order (See Payauys, at least col. 8, lines 54-60, printer module causes the printer to apply the customized graphics on the specified sides to the shipment container).
Payauys does not expressly disclose determine that the first customer order is eligible to include custom package printing.
However, Whittington discloses “modular, customizable packaging” that includes a “shipping container and one or more exterior panels.” (See Whittington, at least Abstract). Whittington further discloses determine that the first customer order is eligible to include custom package printing (See Whittington, at least para. [0062], method to create a unique shipping container; shipping container is customized for a particular type of phone or a particular level of customer (gold v. platinum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys the ability of determine that the first customer order is eligible to include custom package printing as disclosed by Whittington since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “create an experience for customers that is as good, or better, than an in-store experience.” (See Whittington, at least para. [0016]).
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 5 and 14: The combination of Payauys and Whittington discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 discussed above.
Payauys further discloses:
determine that a second print campaign, of the multiple different print campaigns, has a secondary predefined campaign threshold relationship with at least one of the first customer and the at least one item (See Payauys, at least col. 10, lines 1-23, graphics content module determines whether to include graphics that indicate the items inside of the box such as item information, images, etc.; box contains a toy airplane);
wherein the establishing the first print plan establishes the first print plan dependent on the first package fabrication pattern and incorporating both the first print campaign and the second print campaign (See Payauys, at least FIG. 1, FIG. 2A-2D and associated text, item 106 is a box containing an internal graphic of the toy airplane (item 110); item 106 is the box containing external graphics of an image of the airplane and shipping information (item 128); col. 5, line 60 to col. 6, line 5, external graphics may be images, text, logos, patterns, designs, and/or other information. The information may be related to shipping information (e.g., tracking number, addresses, postage, etc.), merchant information, manufacturer information, and/or other information (e.g., advertising, personal messages, greetings, recommendations, etc.).
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 9 and 18: The combination of Payauys and Whittington discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 discussed above.
Payauys further discloses:
identify that a second print campaign, of the multiple different print campaigns, has a second campaign threshold relationship with at least one of the first customer and the at least one item (See Payauys, at least col. 4, lines 15-22, graphics are selected in real-time or near real-time; for example, a shipment container that is processed for shipping on or near the start of January may be printed to include a message of “Happy New Year” while the same package, if processed in November, may include a message of “Happy Thanksgiving”; Happy New Year is one campaign while Happy Thanksgiving is another);
identify that the first print campaign has a priority over the second print campaign (See Payauys, at least col. 4, lines 15-22, graphics are selected in real-time or near real-time; for example, a shipment container that is processed for shipping on or near the start of January may be printed to include a message of “Happy New Year” while the same package, if processed in November, may include a message of “Happy Thanksgiving”; for example, the priority is based on time of year that shipment occurs); and
wherein the establishing the first print campaign establishes, based on the priority of the first print campaign, the first print plan in accordance with the first print campaign and the first package fabrication pattern (See Payauys, at least col. 4, lines 15-22, graphics are selected in real-time or near real-time; for example, a shipment container that is processed for shipping on or near the start of January may be printed to include a message of “Happy New Year” while the same package, if processed in November, may include a message of “Happy Thanksgiving”; for example, the priority is based on time of year that shipment occurs).
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payauys in view of Whittington as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2012/0092724 A1 to Pettis (hereinafter “Pettis”).
Claims 2 and 11: The combination of Payauys and Whittington discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 discussed above.
Neither Payauys nor Whittington expressly discloses identify multiple different fulfillment facilities capable of fulfilling the at least one item; identify that a first fulfillment facility of the multiple different fulfillment facilities includes the custom package fabrication system having the custom printing system; and select the first fulfillment facility to fulfill the at least one item of the first customer order as a function of a throughput capability of the first fulfillment facility and the first fulfillment facility being capable to fulfill the at least one item and having the custom package fabrication system having the custom printing system.
However, Pettis discloses a system and method for adding networking capabilities to three-dimensional printers. (See Pettis, at least Abstract). Pettis further discloses providing “a single point of access for remote users to manage access to distributed content…and to manage use of distributed fabrication resources.” (See Pettis, at least Abstract). Pettis further discloses:
identify multiple different fulfillment facilities capable of fulfilling the at least one item (See Pettis, at least para. [0079], printer may authorize printing according to any related access credentials; print job may be restricted to one or more predetermined three-dimensional printers);
identify that a first fulfillment facility of the multiple different fulfillment facilities includes the custom package fabrication system having the custom printing system (See Pettis, at least para. [0074], requester is coupled to a particular three-dimensional printer; para. [0075], evaluating an availability of a three-dimensional printer for the print job based upon a signal from any of the sensors associated with the three-dimensional printer; para. [0076], evaluation may be based upon sensors such as thermostats, motion or position error detectors, or optical sensors, any of which might permit inferences concerning the ability of the three-dimensional printer to execute a print job; for example, sensor may detect a quantity of build material available to the printer, and a processor on the printer may determine if the supply is inadequate for the requested print job; evaluating the availability of the three-dimensional printer may include accepting the print job only if a supply of build material available for the three-dimensional printer exceeds an amount of build material required for the print job and one or more additional jobs ahead of the requested print job in the queue; para. [0078], evaluation may be based on a receiving state of the three-dimensional printer; para. [0079], printer may authorize printing according to any related access credentials; print job may be restricted to one or more predetermined three-dimensional printers), and
select the first fulfillment facility to fulfill the at least one item of the first customer order as a function of a throughput capability of the first fulfillment facility and the first fulfillment facility being capable to fulfill the at least one item and having the custom package fabrication system having the custom printing system (See Pettis, at least para. [0075], evaluating an availability of a three-dimensional printer for the print job based upon a signal from any of the sensors associated with the three-dimensional printer; para. [0076], evaluation may be based upon sensors such as thermostats, motion or position error detectors, or optical sensors, any of which might permit inferences concerning the ability of the three-dimensional printer to execute a print job; for example, sensor may detect a quantity of build material available to the printer, and a processor on the printer may determine if the supply is inadequate for the requested print job; evaluating the availability of the three-dimensional printer may include accepting the print job only if a supply of build material available for the three-dimensional printer exceeds an amount of build material required for the print job and one or more additional jobs ahead of the requested print job in the queue, i.e., amount of build material is a measure of throughput; para. [0078], evaluation may be based on a receiving state of the three-dimensional printer; para. [0079], printer may authorize printing according to any related access credentials; print job may be restricted to one or more predetermined three-dimensional printers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys and the customizable packaging system and method of Whittington the ability of identify multiple different fulfillment facilities capable of fulfilling the at least one item; identify that a first fulfillment facility of the multiple different fulfillment facilities includes the custom package fabrication system having the custom printing system; and select the first fulfillment facility to fulfill the at least one item of the first customer order as a function of a throughput capability of the first fulfillment facility and the first fulfillment facility being capable to fulfill the at least one item and having the custom package fabrication system having the custom printing system as disclosed by Pettis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “low-cost three-dimensional prototyping devices suitable for hobbyists and home users.” (See Pettis, at least para. [0003]).
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4 and 13: The combination of Payauys and Whittington discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 discussed above.
Payauys further discloses:
determine that the first print campaign has a predefined location threshold relationship with the fulfillment location (See Payauys, at least col. 9, line 65 to col. 10, line 5, graphics content module determines which custom graphics to print based on various information associated with the order; graphics content module determines whether to include graphics that indicate a source of the item, such as the merchant or the manufacturer); and
evaluate a purchase history of the first customer and confirm that the purchase history has a predefined purchase history threshold relationship with a purchase history restriction of the first print campaign (See Payauys, at least col. 10, lines 1-23, graphics content module determines whether to include graphics that indicate the items inside of the box such as item information, images, etc.; when box contains a toy helicopter, graphics content module may include an image, text, or both to provide information about the second item to the recipient of the box; graphics are printed on the box).
Neither Payauys nor Whittington expressly discloses identify a fulfillment location of the first customer order.
However, Pettis discloses identify a fulfillment location of the first customer order (See Pettis, at least para. [0074], requester is coupled to a particular three-dimensional printer; para. [0075], evaluating an availability of a three-dimensional printer for the print job based upon a signal from any of the sensors associated with the three-dimensional printer; para. [0076], evaluation may be based upon sensors such as thermostats, motion or position error detectors, or optical sensors, any of which might permit inferences concerning the ability of the three-dimensional printer to execute a print job; for example, sensor may detect a quantity of build material available to the printer, and a processor on the printer may determine if the supply is inadequate for the requested print job; evaluating the availability of the three-dimensional printer may include accepting the print job only if a supply of build material available for the three-dimensional printer exceeds an amount of build material required for the print job and one or more additional jobs ahead of the requested print job in the queue; para. [0078], evaluation may be based on a receiving state of the three-dimensional printer; para. [0079], printer may authorize printing according to any related access credentials; print job may be restricted to one or more predetermined three-dimensional printers);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys and the customizable packaging system and method of Whittington the ability of identify a fulfillment location of the first customer order as disclosed by Pettis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “low-cost three-dimensional prototyping devices suitable for hobbyists and home users.” (See Pettis, at least para. [0003]).
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 15: The combination of Payauys and Whittington and Pettis discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 11 discussed above.
Neither Payauys nor Whittington expressly discloses identify a second fulfillment facility, of the multiple different fulfillment facilities, is a priority fulfillment location of the first customer order; identify that the second fulfillment facility is incapable of providing custom printing; and select the first fulfillment facility as a substitute fulfillment facility over the second fulfillment facility based on the first fulfillment facility having the custom printing system, the fulfillment location and the first fulfillment facility having the at least one item.
However, Pettis discloses:
identify a second fulfillment facility, of the multiple different fulfillment facilities, is a priority fulfillment location of the first customer order (See Pettis, at least para. [0079],; print job may be restricted to one or more predetermined three-dimensional printers);
identify that the second fulfillment facility is incapable of providing custom printing (See Pettis, at least para. [0082], evaluation indicates that three-dimensional printer is not available for a job); and
select the first fulfillment facility as a substitute fulfillment facility over the second fulfillment facility based on the first fulfillment facility having the custom printing system, the fulfillment location and the first fulfillment facility having the at least one item (See Pettis, at least para. {0083], when the three-dimensional printer is not available for the print job, one or more alternative three-dimensional printers are identified and the requester is redirected to one the alternative three-dimensional printers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys and the customizable packaging system and method of Whittington the ability of identify a second fulfillment facility, of the multiple different fulfillment facilities, is a priority fulfillment location of the first customer order; identify that the second fulfillment facility is incapable of providing custom printing; and select the first fulfillment facility as a substitute fulfillment facility over the second fulfillment facility based on the first fulfillment facility having the custom printing system, the fulfillment location and the first fulfillment facility having the at least one item as disclosed by Pettis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “low-cost three-dimensional prototyping devices suitable for hobbyists and home users.” (See Pettis, at least para. [0003]).
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payauys in view of Whittington and further in view of Pettis as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of US 11,126,956 B2 to Farias et al. (hereinafter “Farias”).
The combination of Payauys and Whittington and Pettis discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 11 discussed above.
Neither Payauys nor Whittington nor Pettis expressly discloses identify a fulfillment location of the first customer order; confirm that the first fulfillment facility and a second fulfillment facility each has a location threshold relationship with the fulfillment location; confirm that each of the first fulfillment facility and the second fulfillment facility is a predicted to have the at least one item at an estimated time of fulfillment; identify a cost benefit of fulfilling the first customer order through the first fulfillment facility over fulfillment at the second fulfillment facility; and select the first fulfillment facility, based on the identified cost benefit, to fulfill at least part of the first customer order comprising the at least one item.
However, Farias discloses a system and method for “the automated fulfilment of orders from a fulfillment network including consumer-facing retail locations. “ (See Farias, at least Abstract). Farias further discloses:
identify a fulfillment location of the first customer order (See Farias, at least col. 6, line 46-53, customer places an order for various goods with a retailer, typically including an address and a deadline for delivery; order is submitted to hub for processing);
confirm that the first fulfillment facility and a second fulfillment facility each has a location threshold relationship with the fulfillment location (See Farias, at least col. 6, lines 53-67, hub decomposes the order into one or more suborders having at least one item; each of these items can be found in one or more of 4 different stores);
confirm that each of the first fulfillment facility and the second fulfillment facility is a predicted to have the at least one item at an estimated time of fulfillment (See Farias, at least col. 6, lines 53-67, hub decomposes the order into one or more suborders having at least one item; each of these items can be found in one or more of 4 different stores, i.e., each item is in stock);
identify a cost benefit of fulfilling the first customer order through the first fulfillment facility over fulfillment at the second fulfillment facility (See Farias, at least col. 3, lines 4-15, delivery factor is calculated based on the delivery address and the retail locations; for each suborder, a retail location for fulfilling the suborder is based on the delivery factor; delivery factor is delivery time or delivery cost); and
select the first fulfillment facility, based on the identified cost benefit, to fulfill at least part of the first customer order comprising the at least one item (See Farias, at least col. 3, lines 4-15, delivery factor is calculated based on the delivery address and the retail locations; for each suborder, a retail location for fulfilling the suborder is based on the delivery factor; delivery factor is delivery time or delivery cost) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys and the customizable packaging system and method of Whittington and the three-dimensional printing system and method of Pettis the ability identify a fulfillment location of the first customer order; confirm that the first fulfillment facility and a second fulfillment facility each has a location threshold relationship with the fulfillment location; confirm that each of the first fulfillment facility and the second fulfillment facility is a predicted to have the at least one item at an estimated time of fulfillment; identify a cost benefit of fulfilling the first customer order through the first fulfillment facility over fulfillment at the second fulfillment facility; and select the first fulfillment facility, based on the identified cost benefit, to fulfill at least part of the first customer order comprising the at least one item as disclosed by Farias since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the “optimization of the fulfillment process in a holistic manner that does not, e.g., rely on a rules-based approach.” (See Farias, at least col. 1, lines 40-46).
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payauys in view of Whittington as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2003/0035138 A1 to Schilling (hereinafter “Schilling”).
The combination of Payauys and Whittington discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 discussed above.
Payauys does not expressly disclose identify that the first customer is associated with a customer level authorizing…customized printing.
However, Whittington discloses identify that the first customer is associated with a customer level authorizing…customized printing (See Whittington, at least para. [0062], method to create a unique shipping container; shipping container is customized for a particular type of phone or a particular level of customer (gold v. platinum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys the ability of identify that the first customer is associated with a customer level authorizing…customized printing as disclosed by Whittington since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “create an experience for customers that is as good, or better, than an in-store experience.” (See Whittington, at least para. [0016]).
Neither Payauys nor Whittington expressly discloses identify that the first customer is associated with a customer…authorizing the first customer to elect to add customized printing; and control a customer user interface to present an option to the first customer of authorizing the customized printing.
However, Schilling discloses a method “to enable package customers to control package selection, design, shipping, and payment decisions via the Internet so that customized package orders may be placed and filed electronically.” (See Schilling, at least Abstract). Schilling further discloses a web site “accessible by a customer via the Internet… to enable online customers to ‘customize’ their packages by (1) adding graphics (i.e. text and images), including numerous images available in an art library or by (2) uploading their own text and images to build a customer-defined ‘text and image’ library and adding artwork from that customer-defined library. In one embodiment, once a customized package order is placed by a customer, that order (or re-order) is communicated via the Internet to a package printing site where packages are printed to the custom specifications ordered by the customer, a financial account established by the customer is charged for the order, and the completed and paid for order is shipped to the customer.” (See Schilling, at least para. [0006]). Schilling further discloses:
identify that the first customer is associated with a customer…authorizing the first customer to elect to add customized printing (See Schilling, at least para. [0052], Once the customer has logged into the website, certain site options are available to the customer; para. [0053], after logging into the website customer can navigate to the portion of the website that permits designing of the images to be printed on the packages); and
control a customer user interface to present an option to the first customer of authorizing the customized printing (See Schilling, at least FIGs. 9-10 and associated text; para. [0105], if the customer wants to design custom graphics to be printed on the box, then the customer selects icon 656 and server 102 responds with a Print Area Selection window 662 as shown in FIG. 10; FIG. 22 and associated text; para,. [0142], after the customer has created and/or selected all of the box designs that customer wants to order, such that all of the desired box designs appear in table 800 on page 540 of FIG. 22, the customer selects Check-Out icon 838; Fig. 28 and associated text; para. [0152], customer selects “Submit” button to submit the order and receives an order confirmation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys and the customizable packaging system and method of Whittington the ability of identify that the first customer is associated with a customer…authorizing the first customer to elect to add customized printing; and control a customer user interface to present an option to the first customer of authorizing the customized printing as disclosed by Schilling since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow small businesses to order custom printed materials in low quantities without being cost prohibitive. (See Schilling, at least para. [0004]).
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payauys in view of Whittington and further in view of Pettis as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2011/0145100 A1 to Berger et al. (hereinafter “Berger”).
The combination of Payauys and Whittington and Pettis discloses all the limitations of claim 2 discussed above.
Neither Payauys nor Whittington nor Pettis expressly discloses wherein the package customization control circuit, in selecting the first fulfillment facility, is to determine that the first fulfillment facility has a distance threshold relationship to fulfillment of the at least one item.
However, Berger discloses a system and method “for digitally processing a stationery order and for selecting an optimum fulfillment site for fulfilling the stationery order.” (See Berger, at least Abstract). Berger further discloses “providing an end user with a set of selectable stationery templates, the stationery personalization engine receiving an indication that an end user has selected a particular one of the stationery templates; collecting personalization data from the user, the personalization data including personalized messages, one or more stationery formatting options selected by the user, and names and addresses of stationery recipients; applying the personalization data to the stationery templates to generate a personalized stationery design; identifying a set of eligible fulfillment sites for printing the stationery design based on a first set of variables; and identifying an optimal fulfillment site from the set of eligible fulfillment sites based on a second set of variables.” (See Berger, at least Abstract).
Berger further discloses wherein the package customization control circuit, in selecting the first fulfillment facility, is to determine that the first fulfillment facility has a distance threshold relationship to fulfillment of the at least one item (See Berger, at least para. [0057], a set of eligible fulfillment sites are identified based on variables such as the capabilities of each site (e.g., some may not be capable of printing certain orders); the geographical location of each site (e.g., orders for US recipients should be printed by US companies to avoid additional shipping fees); and the type of products supported by each site (e.g., digital press cards, letter press cards, address labels, etc.); para. [0048], order processor 142 selects a fulfillment site based on variables other than quota. For example, the order processor 142 may select one eligible site over another eligible site based on the geographical location of the two sites--i.e., selecting the site which is closer to where the stationery order will be shipped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys and the customizable packaging system and method of Whittington and the three-dimensional printing system and method of Pettis the ability wherein the package customization control circuit, in selecting the first fulfillment facility, is to determine that the first fulfillment facility has a distance threshold relationship to fulfillment of the at least one item as disclosed by Berger since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “an automated, efficient system and method for processing and selecting an optimal destination for printing online stationery designs.” (See Berger, at least para. [0006]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payauys in view of Whittington as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pettis, and in further in view of Berger.
The combination of Payauys and Whittington discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Payauys nor Whittington expressly discloses identify multiple different fulfillment facilities capable of fulfilling the at least one item.
However, Pettis discloses identify multiple different fulfillment facilities capable of fulfilling the at least one item (See Pettis, at least para. [0079], printer may authorize printing according to any related access credentials; print job may be restricted to one or more predetermined three-dimensional printers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys and the customizable packaging system and method of Whittington the ability of identify multiple different fulfillment facilities capable of fulfilling the at least one item as disclosed by Pettis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “low-cost three-dimensional prototyping devices suitable for hobbyists and home users.” (See Pettis, at least para. [0003]).
Neither Payauys nor Whittington nor Pettis expressly discloses identify a set of fulfillment facilities of the multiple different fulfillment facilities that have a geographic threshold relationship with the first print campaign, and select the first fulfillment facility to fulfill the at least one item of the first customer order to balance print demand across the set of fulfillment facilities.
However, Berger discloses identify a set of fulfillment facilities of the multiple different fulfillment facilities that have a geographic threshold relationship with the first print campaign (See Berger, at least para. [0057], a set of eligible fulfillment sites are identified based on variables such as the capabilities of each site (e.g., some may not be capable of printing certain orders); the geographical location of each site (e.g., orders for US recipients should be printed by US companies to avoid additional shipping fees); and the type of products supported by each site (e.g., digital press cards, letter press cards, address labels, etc.); para. [0048], order processor 142 selects a fulfillment site based on variables other than quota. For example, the order processor 142 may select one eligible site over another eligible site based on the geographical location of the two sites--i.e., selecting the site which is closer to where the stationery order will be shipped), and select the first fulfillment facility to fulfill the at least one item of the first customer order to balance print demand across the set of fulfillment facilities (See Berger, at least para. [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized packaging system and method of Payauys and the customizable packaging system and method of Whittington and the three-dimensional printing system and method of Pettis the ability of identify a set of fulfillment facilities of the multiple different fulfillment facilities that have a geographic threshold relationship with the first print campaign, and select the first fulfillment facility to fulfill the at least one item of the first customer order to balance print demand across the set of fulfillment facilities as disclosed by Berger since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “an automated, efficient system and method for processing and selecting an optimal destination for printing online stationery designs.” (See Berger, at least para. [0006]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights