DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response filed 11/26/2024.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 5, and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 9, and 10, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of claims 1-4, 5, and 6 are taught by claims 1-4, 9, and 10, respectively, of the ‘154 patent.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claim 1 the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine). The claimed invention of independent claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claim 1, as a whole, recites the following limitations:
receive a request for a target package (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a request for a target package; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers)
(a) determine actual transit times for a set of packages; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine actual transit times for a set of packages; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers)
c) for each model: determine predicted transit times for the set of packages using the model; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a predicted transit time using a model; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers)
determine individual evaluation metrics for each of a set of time periods based on the predicted and actual transit times for the set of packages; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine evaluation metrics for each of aa set of time periods based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers)
d) select a model from the set of models based on the individual evaluation metrics for each trained model; and (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a model based on evaluation metrics; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers)
e) predict a transit time for the target package using the selected model; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could predict a transit time for a target package; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers)
. . . returns the predicted transit time for the target package. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment present a predicted transit time for a target package; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform each of the above steps; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the elements as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this process to predict transit times for packages in performing shipment services for their customers.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A system, comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
an interface configured to (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a processing system configured to (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
b) train a set of models using supervised learning, wherein each model is trained using a different set of historic transit data; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the mere requirement to apply the abstract idea using machine learning since the claim merely invokes machine learning as a tool to perform an existing process; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the field of use of machine learning)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-6, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein each of the set of packages is associated with an evaluation period, wherein each of the set of time periods is within the evaluation period.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the time periods used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 3:
wherein each of the set of packages is delivered within the evaluation period.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the evaluation periods used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 4:
wherein the processing system is further configured to: for each model, aggregate the individual evaluation metrics to determine an overall evaluation metric, wherein selecting a model from the set of models based on the individual evaluation metrics comprises selecting the model based on the overall evaluation metric for each trained model.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could aggregate evaluation metrics and then select a model based on the aggregated evaluation metrics; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 5:
wherein the interface is further configured to return the predicted transit time for the target package, wherein the predicted transit time for the target package is used to select a shipping carrier service.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could return predicted transit times and use them to select a shipping carrier service; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 6:
wherein a label is generated for the selected shipping carrier service, wherein the target package is shipped using the label.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a shipping label and use it for a selected shipping service; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in performing shipment services for their customers. To the extent that the claim positively requires shipping the package, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post solution activity. Examiner respectfully takes official notice of the fact that shipping a package using a selected shipping service is well-understood routine and conventional activity in the field of shipping.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-6, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20200342398; hereinafter "Aggarwal") in view of Cote et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20210374632; hereinafter "Cote").
As per claim 1, Aggarwal teaches:
A system, comprising:
Aggarwal teaches a system and method for providing delivery time predictions. (Aggarwal: abstract)
an interface configured to receive a request for a target package;
Aggarwal teaches that the system may receive an order for a package from the user via an interface. (Aggarwal: paragraph [0025], Fig. 2)
and a processing system configured to:
Aggarwal teaches a processing system in the form of a n optimization delivery range provider 110. (Aggarwal: paragraph [0025, 73-82], Figs. 2, 9)
a) determine actual transit times for a set of packages;
Aggarwal teaches that training data may be gathered regarding actual delivery times for previous sets of packages, and that various machine learning models may be trained using this information. (Aggarwal; paragraph [0051, 53-58])
With respect to the following limitation:
b) train a set of models using supervised learning, wherein each model is trained using a different set of historic transit data;
Aggarwal teaches that training data may be gathered regarding actual delivery times for previous sets of packages, and that various machine learning models may be trained using this information. (Aggarwal; paragraph [0051, 53-58], see paragraph [0026] of Aggarwal outlining a number of different supervised machine learning techniques) Aggarwal, however, does not appear to explicitly teach the use of separate training data for each model.
Cote, however, teaches that differing machine learning models in the field of supply chain forecasting may be trained using different training data sets. (Cote: paragraph [0046]) Cote teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Aggarwal for the benefit of accounting for differing dynamics in different delivery regions. Id. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cote with the teachings of Aggarwal to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Furthermore, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Aggarwal or by Cote. Training the separate machine learning models taught by Aggarwal with separate training sets, as taught by Cote, does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Aggarwal. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Cote with the teachings of Aggarwal, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Aggarwal in view of Cote further teaches:
c) for each model: determine predicted transit times for the set of packages using the model;
Aggarwal teaches that training data may be gathered regarding actual delivery times for previous sets of packages, and that various machine learning models may be trained using this information. (Aggarwal; paragraph [0051, 53-59])
and determine individual evaluation metrics for each of a set of time periods based on the predicted and actual transit times for the set of packages;
Aggarwal teaches that the models may be tested and the accuracy of the model may be determined using a set of evaluation metrics, wherein the model may only be selected if it passes this evaluation. (Aggarwal: paragraphs [0040-42])
d) select a model from the set of models based on the individual evaluation metrics for each trained model;
Aggarwal teaches that the models may be tested and the accuracy of the model may be determined using a set of evaluation metrics, wherein the model may only be selected if it passes this evaluation. (Aggarwal: paragraphs [0040-42])
and e) predict a transit time for the target package using the selected model;
Aggarwal teaches that the models may be tested and the accuracy of the model may be determined using a set of evaluation metrics, wherein the model may only be selected if it passes this evaluation. (Aggarwal: paragraphs [0040-42, 60])
wherein the interface returns the predicted transit time for the target package.
Aggarwal teaches that the system may then output the delivery estimate to the user. (Aggarwal: paragraph [0027])
As per claim 2, Aggarwal in view of Cote teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein each of the set of packages is associated with an evaluation period, wherein each of the set of time periods is within the evaluation period.
Aggarwal further teaches that the training data may be separated by evaluation periods comprising months in which the deliveries were made. (Aggarwal: paragraph [0057])
As per claim 3, Aggarwal in view of Cote teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein each of the set of packages is delivered within the evaluation period.
Aggarwal further teaches that the training data may be separated by evaluation periods comprising months in which the deliveries were made. (Aggarwal: paragraph [0057])
As per claim 4, Aggarwal in view of Cote teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processing system is further configured to: for each model, aggregate the individual evaluation metrics to determine an overall evaluation metric, wherein selecting a model from the set of models based on the individual evaluation metrics comprises selecting the model based on the overall evaluation metric for each trained model.
Aggarwal further teaches that the evaluation metric may comprise a percentage of properly evaluated delivery predictions and therefore teaches an aggregated individual evaluation metric. (Aggarwal: paragraph [0041, 60-64])
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal in view of Cote further in view of Batemen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20170154347; hereinafter "Batemen").
As per claim 5, Aggarwal in view of Cote teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the interface is further configured to return the predicted transit time for the target package, wherein the predicted transit time for the target package is used to select a shipping carrier service.
Batemen, however, teaches that a machine learned delivery time estimate may be used to determine the proper service level of the package to be delivered. (Batemen: paragraphs [0036, 38, 53, 58-60]) Batemen teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Aggarwal in view of Cote for the benefit of improving delivery of a parcel by leveraging delivery estimates. (Batemen: paragraph [0058]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Batemen with the teachings of Aggarwal in view of Cote to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal in view of Cote further in view of Batemen and further in view of Rahman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20100145754; hereinafter "Rahman").
As per claim 6, Aggarwal in view of Cote further in view of Batemen teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein a label is generated for the selected shipping carrier service, wherein the target package is shipped using the label.
Rahman, however, teaches that a shipping label may be generated and used to ship a product, wherein the shipping label is used to ship the package. (Rahman: paragraph [0039]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Aggarwal in view of Cote further in view of Batemen, or by Rahman. Generating and using a shipping label, as taught by Rahman, does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Aggarwal in view of Cote further in view of Batemen. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Rahman with the teachings of Aggarwal in view of Cote further in view of Batemen, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628