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 August 15, 2024. The applicant’s claim for benefit of provisional application 63535792, filed August 31, 2023, has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 12, 2024, has been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to a system and method to custom print packaging for retail orders. With respect to claim 10, claim elements identifying a first customer order, confirming that the first customer order is eligible to include custom package printing, identifying that packaging is to be custom printed, identifying a first package fabrication pattern, and identifying a first print plan, as drafted, illustrate steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Claim 1 recites similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 10 recites receiving information and claims 1 and 10 each recite controlling a printer, i.e., transmitting/outputting information. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, claim 1 recites an order fulfilment control system and a custom package fabrication system comprising a custom printing system. These elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 10 recites receiving information and claims 1 and 10 each recite controlling a printer, i.e., transmitting/outputting information. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Further, as discussed above, claim 1 recites an order fulfilment control system and a custom package fabrication system comprising a custom printing system. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1 and 10 are directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 depend from claims 1 and 10. Claims 2 and 11 are directed to identifying a first fulfillment facility and identifying that the first fulfillment facility includes the custom package fabrication system and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 3 and 12 are directed to evaluating different print campaigns, confirming a first print campaign, and establishing the first print plan and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 13 are directed to identifying a fulfilment location, confirming that the first print campaign has a predefined location threshold relationship with the fulfilment location, and evaluating a purchase history of the first customer and confirming the purchase history has a predefined purchase history threshold relationship with a purchase history restriction and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 14 are directed to confirming a second print campaign and establishing the first print plan and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 15 are directed to identifying a second fulfillment facility, identifying that the second fulfillment facility is incapable of providing custom printing, and selecting the first fulfillment facility and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 16 are directed to identifying a fulfilment location, confirming that the first fulfilment facility and a second fulfillment facility each has a location threshold relationship with the fulfilment location, confirming that each of the first fulfillment facility and second fulfillment facility is predicted have the at least one item, identify a cost benefit, and select the first fulfilment facility and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 17 are directed to identifying that the first customer is associated with a customer level and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 17 are further directed to controlling a user interface to display something which, as discussed above, is a function that is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 9 and 18 are directed to evaluating different print campaigns, identifying that a first print campaign and a second print campaign have respective predefined campaign threshold relationships with the customer and/or the item, identifying that the first print campaign has priority over the second print campaign, and establishing the first print plan and are further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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, 8-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US 10,011,387 B1 to Payauys (hereinafter “Payauys”), in view of US 2003/0035138 A1 to Schilling (hereinafter “Schilling”).
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) configured 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);
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
control the custom printing system, of the custom package fabrication system, to print 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 confirm that the first customer order is eligible to include custom package 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 confirm that the first customer order is eligible to include custom package 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).
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 confirm that the first customer order is eligible to include custom package 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 10 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 8 and 17: The combination of Payauys and Schilling 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 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:
identify that the first customer is associated with a customer level 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 the ability identify that the first customer is associated with a customer level 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.
Claims 9 and 18: The combination of Payauys and Schilling discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 discussed above.
Payauys further discloses:
evaluate multiple different print campaigns in relation to the first customer (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”);
identify that a first print campaign and a second print campaign, of the multiple different print campaigns, each has a respective predefined 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
establish, 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 2-6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payauys in view of Schilling 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 Schilling discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 discussed above.
Neither Payauys nor Schilling expressly discloses identify a first fulfillment facility, of multiple different fulfillment facilities, to be used in fulfilling the at least one item, and identify that the first fulfillment facility includes 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 a first fulfillment facility, of multiple different fulfillment facilities, to be used in fulfilling the at least one item (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
identify that the first fulfillment facility includes 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; 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 custom printing system and method of Schilling the ability identify a first fulfillment facility, of multiple different fulfillment facilities, to be used in fulfilling the at least one item, and identify that the first fulfillment facility includes 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 3 and 12: The combination of Payauys and Schilling and Pettis discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 11 discussed above.
Payauys further discloses:
evaluate multiple different print campaigns in relation to the first customer (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);
confirm a first print campaign, of the multiple different print campaigns, has a 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.; 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
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).
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4 and 13: The combination of Payauys and Schilling and Pettis discloses all the limitations of claims 3 and 12 discussed above.
Payauys further discloses:
confirm 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 to 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 Schilling 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 custom printing system and method of Schilling the ability 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 5 and 14: The combination of Payauys and Schilling and Pettis discloses all the limitations of claims 3 and 12 discussed above.
Payauys further discloses:
confirm 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); and
establish 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 6 and 15: The combination of Payauys and Schilling and Pettis discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 11 discussed above.
Neither Payauys nor Schilling 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 custom printing system and method of Schilling the ability 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 Schilling 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 Schilling and Pettis discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 11 discussed above.
Neither Payauys nor Schilling 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 custom printing system and method of Schilling 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0152506 A1 to Pradeep is directed to a dynamic package personalization system that identifies an image or a background scene that appeals to the user based on user preferences and provides the product ordered by the user in a package printed with the image or background scene.
US 2014/0108188 A1 to Comstock et al. is directed to printing customized products and meeting service level agreements for printing the products.
US 2013/0124334 A1 to Krone et al. is directed to a custom printed order placement and fulfillment system and method.
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