00.000Notice 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I ( claims 1-14 ) in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14, 21-26 are currently pending. Claims 15-20 are canceled. Claims 21-26 are new.
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 1-14, 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and Claims 8-14, 21-26 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-14, 21-26 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites receiving an advanced shipping notice from a shipper; parsing a shipping date from the advanced shipping notice; comparing the shipping date to an arrival date stored in an entry for a container; and treating the advanced shipping notice as an updated advanced shipping notice instead of an original advanced shipping notice when the shipping date is before the arrival date or less than a selected number of days after the arrival date.
Independent claim 8 substantially recites: receives advanced shipping notices :comparing a shipping date for a container in a received advance shipping notice to an arrival date in an existing record for the container; when the shipping date is after the arrival date by a selected number of days, processing the advanced shipping notice as an initial advanced shipping notice for a shipment; and when the shipping date is before the arrival date or less than the selected number of days after the arrival date the arrival, processing the advanced shipping notice as an update to an initial advanced shipping notice.
Independent claim 21 substantially recites: receives advanced shipping notices; parsing a shipping date for a container in a received advance shipping notice; reading an arrival date in an existing stored record for the container; selecting between processing the advanced shipping notice as an initial advanced shipping notice for a shipment and processing the advanced shipping notice as an update to an initial advanced shipping notice based on the shipping date for the container and the arrival date for the container so as to avoid data corruption of the stored record.
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8 and 21 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent).
The independent claims recite the additional elements of: (i) system, processor, advanced shipping notice receiving system, advance shipping notice logic system, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See specification:[0073] The remote computer 52 may be a server, a router, a peer device, or other common network node. [0075] In a networked environment, program modules depicted relative to the computing device 10, or portions thereof, may be stored in the remote memory storage device 54. For example, application programs may be stored utilizing memory storage device 54 [0071] Processing unit 12, also referred to as a processor, executes programs in system memory 14 and solid-state memory 25 to perform the methods described above [0064] System 1000 includes core logic 1002, which receives input documents through integration systems 1004. Core logic 1002 includes a markup determination system 1060 for performing the steps of FIG. 8 for determining markups of products and a title transfer system 1062 for transferring title between entities.)), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination ( as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 11) , do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”, which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: (i) system, processor, advanced shipping notice receiving system, advance shipping notice logic system, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea (e.g., using computers to communicate data). Claims 11, 14, and 24 recite “markup determination system” and “title transfer system”, these are merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Claims 11, 14, and 24 recite the additional elements “markup determination system” and “title transfer system” which are recited at a high-level of generality (See Specification: [0064] System 1000 includes core logic 1002, which receives input documents through integration systems 1004. Core logic 1002 includes a markup determination system 1060 for performing the steps of FIG. 8 for determining markups of products and a title transfer system 1062 for transferring title between entities. [0066] markup values 1050 are proved to core logic 1002 by a user through one or more user interfaces 1044) – these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 21, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helvie (US 20200193450 A1) in view of Almeida ( US 20200074401 A1)
As per claim 1, Helvie teaches:
A method comprising: receiving an advanced shipping notice from a shipper; ( see at least: [0027-28] an advance ship notice (“ASN”) (e.g., EDI 856) may be received from an overseas vendor, overseas consolidation center, overseas carrier, duty broker, or otherwise, at the customs compliance tool 204 [0021])
parsing a shipping date from the advanced shipping notice; ( see at least:[0029] The OTM API 224 may provide access to current data associated with the overseas vendor, including the estimated time of departure (“ETD”).
comparing the shipping date to an arrival date stored in an entry for a container; ( see at least: [0040] comparing record data with retrieved current data, and for identifying improperly formatted data, incomplete data, conflicting data, and the like [0029] the current data may include a list of items to be shipped, the name and address (or commercial ID) for the overseas carrier, the name of the vessel, the estimated time of departure (“ETD”), the estimated time of arrival (“ETA”), the destination port, the “ship to” party (e.g., domestic flow center), and the like [0037] the customs compliance tool 204 may apply rules to the data to determine which data is more current (e.g., based on data timestamps or other metadata). Additionally, the ISF Processor/Auditor 214, in conjunction with ISF Processing Management API 244, may identify discrepancies within the ISF record. For instance, the customs compliance tool 204 may identify improperly formatted data, incomplete data, conflicting data, and the like [ comparing entries based on rules][0068] at operation 508, the record data may be compared to the supplemental data. For example, if the ISF record lists the ETA as 05/07/18, but the supplemental data from the overseas carrier lists the ETA as 05/08/18, the ISF record may be updated accordingly.).
treating the advanced shipping notice as an updated advanced shipping notice instead of an original advanced shipping notice by comparing dates ( see at least: Fig.6, [0004] the method includes auditing record data of the ISF record based on the supplemental data and, when the record data matches the supplemental data, submitting an ISF to a U.S. customs authority[0068] at operation 508, the record data may be compared to the supplemental data. For example, if the ISF record lists the ETA as 05/07/18, but the supplemental data from the overseas carrier lists the ETA as 05/08/18, the ISF record may be updated accordingly )
Helvie does not explicitly teach when the shipping date is before the arrival date or less than a selected number of days after the arrival date. However, this is taught by Almeida ( see at least: [0076] the data may be “cleansed” to remove data errors and outliers[0113] a supply chain planner can set thresholds in the mean absolute deviation between planned and historical lead times for each time series, leading to “tolerance” zones for each time series. [0114] For example, if a planner is tuning the lead times for a shipment of automobiles, s/he can define an “inside” tolerance threshold of 0-2 days (i.e. lead times in this zone do not have to be altered); a “near” tolerance threshold of 2-6 days (i.e. lead times in this zone may be automatically updated or may require further review by the planner); and a “outside” tolerance threshold of 6 days or more (i.e. lead times in this zone may have to be changed, but require review from a planner). The lead time zone thresholds and their actions can be changed depending on the product and can be set based on days or percentage [0003] it is advantageous to accurately measure the actual capabilities of a supply chain, compare them with the original design, and make systematic corrections if necessary [0031]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine updating feature when the shipping date is before the arrival date or less than a selected number of days after the arrival date. for the same reasons its useful in Almeida -namely, to accurately measure the actual capabilities of a supply chain, compare them with the original design, and make systematic corrections if necessary ( par.3). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 2, Helvie in view of Almeida teaches claim 1 as above. Helvie further teaches:
a previous advanced shipping notice includes at least one bill of lading identifier ( see at least: [0027] The ASN may include a number of details regarding a proposed shipment of goods, including a purchase order (“PO”) number, a bill of lading (“BOL)
Helvie teaches bill of lading identifier that is different from a bill of lading identifier in the received advanced shipping notice. [0034] the customs compliance tool 204 may apply rules to the current data in order to identify data needed for the ISF and to determine which data is more accurate (or up-to-date)[0035] The ISF Processor/Auditor 214 of the customs compliance tool 204 may access the ISF Processing Management API 244 to audit, submit, correct, and/or resubmit an ISF to U.S. CBP 234. customs compliance tool 204 may further retrieve current data to determine whether the ISF record comprises the most up-to-date information. Similar to the discussion above, the customs compliance tool 204 may apply rules to the data to determine which data is more current (e.g., based on data timestamps or other metadata) [0036] Upon updating the ISF, it may be resubmitted and will be either accepted or rejected with comments[0021] , any data that is updated following generation of the EDI 856 must be retrieved from the entities identified above in order to make an accurate ISF submission. [0072] disposition code S1 indicates that there is a BOL on file that has been matched to the ISF. Alternatively, disposition codes S2-S5 indicate that there is no BOL on file matching the ISF and that the ISF will be canceled after a predetermined time period. There are a large number of error codes, each error code specifying a particular issue with the ISF data. For instance, error codes may range from an invalid submission type for the ISF, to invalid number formats, to missing or incomplete information.)
As per claim 3, Helvie in view of Almeida teaches claim 1 as above. Helvie further teaches:
comparing all items in an updated advanced shipping notice that are designated for a purchase order to items listed in an original advanced shipping notice for the purchase order to determine whether the items in the updated advance shipping notice match the items listed in the original advanced shipping notice. ( see at least: [0005] receives current data including one or more of: a purchase order (“PO”) number, a bill of lading (“BOL”) number, one or more shipped item numbers, a shipped item quantity for each shipped item number, a ship to party, a vessel name, a ship from country, or an overseas carrier. The computing system creates an importer security filing (“ISF”) record, the ISF record based at least in part on the current data, and retrieves supplemental data by accessing at least one interface. The supplemental data includes one or more of a PO corresponding to the PO number, where the PO includes one or more ordered item numbers and an ordered item quantity for each ordered item; supplemental data of an overseas vendor; or supplemental data of an overseas carrier. The computing system further audits record data of the ISF record based on the supplemental data and, when the record data matches the supplemental data, submits an ISF to a U.S. customs authority [0021] any data that is updated following generation of the EDI 856 must be retrieved from the entities identified above in order to make an accurate ISF submission. [0030] the PO API 242 may provide current data for a PO (purchase order ) corresponding to the PO number referenced in an ASN. Such current data may include one or more ordered item numbers and a quantity for each ordered item. [0035] the ISF Processor/Auditor 214, in conjunction with ISF Processing Management API 244, may identify discrepancies within the ISF record. For instance, the customs compliance tool 204 may identify improperly formatted data, incomplete data, conflicting data, and the like.)
As per claim 4, Helvie in view of Almeida teaches claim 3 as above. Helvie further teaches:
when the items for the purchase order in the updated advanced shipping notice do not match the items for the purchase order in the original advanced shipping notice, sending an alert to a user to reconcile the updated advanced shipping notice with the original advanced shipping notice. ( see at least : [0072] disposition code S1 indicates that there is a BOL on file that has been matched to the ISF. Alternatively, disposition codes S2-S5 indicate that there is no BOL on file matching the ISF and that the ISF will be canceled after a predetermined time period. There are a large number of error codes, each error code specifying a particular issue with the ISF data. For instance, error codes may range from an invalid submission type for the ISF, to invalid number formats, to missing or incomplete information.[0082] When data within an ISF record does not match the supplemental data retrieved, the ISF record may be flagged as having a discrepancy. Additionally, during operation 708, each ISF record may be audited for improperly formatted data, incomplete or missing data, conflicting data, and the like [0041-42] selection of an ISF discrepancy workflow 230 may provide menu options for sorting ISF records (e.g., by discrepancy code, CBP error code, CBP status, submission deadline, etc.), for retrieving current data via external interfaces 202 and/or ISF Processing Management API 244 to resolve discrepancies, for manually or automatically applying fixes to the discrepancies (e.g., automatically applying proper number formatting, manually resolving conflicting data, etc.), for manually approving resubmittal of the ISF upon resolution of discrepancies, and the like)
As per claim 5, Helvie in view of Almeida teaches claim 1 as above. Helvie further teaches:
treating the received advanced shipping notice as an original advanced shipping notice ( see at least [0027-28] an advance ship notice (“ASN”), [0035] When it is determined that the ISF record contains complete and accurate information, an ISF may be submitted to the US CBP 234.)
Helvie does not explicitly teach when the shipping date is more than the selected number of days after the arrival date. However, Almeida teaches that by using user/system-defined thresholds for determining when to update or replace an action with different actions occurring in different tolerance zones (Almeida, See at least :[0113]-[0119]: “tolerance zones... action criterion defined by the user... replacing planned lead times by the future lead times forecast...”; [0074]-[0096]: “data preparation module... removes outlier data... checks for valid data... updating records...”[0076] Before analysis by machine learning, the data may be “cleansed” to remove data errors and outliers. Examples of data errors may include records with null values, duplicate records, negative lead times, etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Almeida’s threshold-based update logic with Helvie ‘s ASN/ISF management system to determine submit complete and accurate information ( par.35) . Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 21, Helvie teaches:
a system comprising an advanced shipping notice (ASN) receiving system that receives advanced shipping notices (Helvie, Fig. 2, 204/304; [0027]: “ASN may be received from an overseas vendor... at the customs compliance tool”),
and an advance shipping notice logic system (Helvie, Fig. 3, 312/314; [0035]: “audit, submit, correct, and/or resubmit an ISF... identify discrepancies... resolve the deficiencies...”) that includes a processor parsing a shipping date for a container in a received advanced shipping notice (Helvie, [0028], [0065]: “current data may include... estimated time of departure (ETD)... loaded into a software tool”)
,and reading an arrival date in an existing stored record for the container (Helvie, [0065]-[0069]: “comparing record data with retrieved current data... if the ISF record lists the ETA as 05/07/18, but the supplemental data... lists the ETA as 05/08/18...”).
the processor updates or corrects records as needed to avoid errors and maintain data integrity (D1, [0068]-[0069]: “when the record data does not match the supplemental data, updating the item of the ISF record”).
While Helive teaches processing the advanced shipping notice as initial advanced shipping notice for a shipment ( see at least [0027-28] an advance ship notice (“ASN”), [0035] When it is determined that the ISF record contains complete and accurate information, an ISF may be submitted to the US CBP 234. ) and update to the initial advanced shipping notice ( Fig.6, [0004] the method includes auditing record data of the ISF record based on the supplemental data and, when the record data matches the supplemental data, submitting an ISF to a U.S. customs authority[0068] at operation 508, the record data may be compared to the supplemental data. For example, if the ISF record lists the ETA as 05/07/18, but the supplemental data from the overseas carrier lists the ETA as 05/08/18, the ISF record may be updated accordingly ), Helvie does not explicitly teach the selecting between processing as an initial action or as an update action based on a specific threshold between the shipping date and the arrival date.
However, Almeida teaches using user/system-defined thresholds for determining when to update or replace an action with different actions occurring in different tolerance zones (Almeida, see at least: [0113]-[0119]: “tolerance zones... action criterion defined by the user... replacing planned lead times by the future lead times forecast...”; [0074]-[0096]: “data preparation module... removes outlier data... checks for valid data... updating records...”[0076] Before analysis by machine learning, the data may be “cleansed” to remove data errors and outliers. Examples of data errors may include records with null values, duplicate records, negative lead times, etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Almeida’s threshold-based update logic with Helvie ‘s ASN/ISF management system to select, based on the relationship between shipping and arrival dates (e.g., shipping date before or less than a selected number of days after arrival date), whether to process an ASN as an initial or updated notice, thereby remove data errors and outliers. Examples of data errors may include records with null values, duplicate records, negative lead times, etc ( par.76) . Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 25, Helvie in view of Almeida teaches claim 21 as above. Helvie further teaches:
processing the advanced shipping notice as an update to the initial advanced shipping notice ( see at least: [0050] current data may be retrieved only when changes or updates are detected between the data reflected in the ISF record and the current data maintained by the external sources [0068-69])
aggregating items in the advanced shipping notice that are associated with different bills of lading but a same purchase order to form aggregated items; comparing the aggregated items for a purchase order to items for the purchase order in the existing record for the container. ( see at least: [0079] The current data may include a number of details regarding each proposed shipment of goods, including a purchase order (“PO”) number, a bill of lading (“BOL”) number, one or more shipped item numbers, a shipped item quantity for each shipped item number, In an example, the current data may include a BOL associated with one or more containers (e.g., a “Pre-Advanced Ship Notice,” or “PreASN” container). Batching of PreASNs associated with a unique BOL/PO combination may be performed periodically, e.g., every hour, two hours, four hours, etc., or substantially continuously, e.g., as current data is received PreASNs may be batched with a BOL/PO combination. [0068] the record data may be compared to the supplemental data. [0069] At submit operation 510, when the record data of the ISF record matches the supplemental data, and any discrepancies have been resolved, the ISF may be submitted to U.S. CBP ( comparing) )
As per claim 26, Helvie in view of Almeida teaches claim 25 as above. Helvie further teaches:
processing the advanced shipping notice as an update to the initial advanced shipping notice ( see at least: [0050] current data may be retrieved only when changes or updates are detected between the data reflected in the ISF record and the current data maintained by the external sources [0068-69])
when the aggregated items for the purchase order do not match the items for the purchase order in the existing record for the container, sending an alert to a user. ( see at least: [0082] When data within an ISF record does not match the supplemental data retrieved, the ISF record may be flagged as having a discrepancy. Additionally, during operation 708, each ISF record may be audited for improperly formatted data, incomplete or missing data, conflicting data, and the like [0041-42] selection of an ISF discrepancy workflow 230 may provide menu options for sorting ISF records (e.g., by discrepancy code, CBP error code, CBP status, submission deadline, etc.), for retrieving current data via external interfaces 202 and/or ISF Processing Management API 244 to resolve discrepancies, for manually or automatically applying fixes to the discrepancies (e.g., automatically applying proper number formatting, manually resolving conflicting data, etc.), for manually approving resubmittal of the ISF upon resolution of discrepancies, and the like [0079] The current data may include a number of details regarding each proposed shipment of goods, including a purchase order (“PO”) number, a bill of lading (“BOL”) number, one or more shipped item numbers, a shipped item quantity for each shipped item number, In an example, the current data may include a BOL associated with one or more containers (e.g., a “Pre-Advanced Ship Notice,” or “PreASN” container). Batching of PreASNs associated with a unique BOL/PO combination may be performed periodically, e.g., every hour, two hours, four hours, etc., or substantially continuously, e.g., as current data is received PreASNs may be batched with a BOL/PO combination.)
Claim(s)24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helvie (US 20200193450 A1) in view of Almeida ( US 20200074401 A1) in further view of Taylor (US 20240211842 A1)
As per claim 24, Helvie in view of Almeida teaches claim 21 as above. Helvie further teaches:
a processor retrieving an item identifier provided in an advanced shipping notice; ( see at least:[0005] the computing system receives current data including one or more of: a purchase order (“PO”) number, a bill of lading (“BOL”) number, one or more shipped item numbers, [0030] )
Helvie does not explicitly teach a markup determination system performing steps comprising: the processor using the item identifier to determine a category of items; the processor using the category of items to retrieve a markup value; and the processor using the markup value to determine a markup for an item identified However, this is taught by Taylor ( see at least: abstract, Fig.4 item category , Fig.6 pricing policy [0060] the online concierge system 140 determines 305 a category for an item based on item data included in the data store 240 [0009] a price adjustment model outputs a category and an amount by which a markup specified by the pricing policy applied to the category is to be increased or is to be decreased [0071] the online concierge system 140 applies 315 a pricing policy to each item in a category )
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the item category markup price for the same reasons its useful in Taylor -namely, such category-specific markups may allow the online concierge system 140 to optimize revenue from order fulfillment without decreasing revenue to the retailer from the orders ( par.82). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
There is no prior art found that teaches or suggests alone, or in combination with other arts all of the limitations “when the shipping date is after the arrival date by a selected number of days, processing the advanced shipping notice as an initial advanced shipping notice for a shipment” of claim 8 ( as its dependent claims 9-14).
There is no prior art found that teaches or suggests alone, or in combination with other arts all of the limitations of claims 6-7 and 22-23.
The closest prior arts:
Radian ( US6148291) describes a system and method for matching incoming shipment information and arrival information to maintain accurate container and inventory records and preform audit verification, however it does not teach “when the shipping date is after the arrival date by a selected number of days, processing the advanced shipping notice as an initial advanced shipping notice for a shipment” of claim 8, claims 6-7, and 22-23.
Tan (US 8630443 B2) describes a system and method for detects errors in a container inventory database associated with a container inventory tracking system of a container storage facility, however it does not teach “when the shipping date is after the arrival date by a selected number of days, processing the advanced shipping notice as an initial advanced shipping notice for a shipment” of claim 8, claims 6-7 and 22-23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANAL A. ALSAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571)272-5587. 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.
/MANAL A. ALSAMIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights