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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 06/08/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Claims 1-20 all includes limitations regarding various models. This feature first occurs in 15/429,074’s original filed specification on 02/09/2017. Therefore, claims 1-20 are given effective filing date of 02/09/2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 05/06/2026 has been considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments directed to 112(b) rejection is persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument directed to 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive except for claim 12.
Applicant first argues on page 14 that limitation does not disclose any sales activities or behaviors or business relationships. Examiner respectfully disagree as predicting delivery is a business relationship. The invention is directed to “parcels” that is shipped between a sender and recipient. Estimating its delivery time would clearly be a type of business relationship among all parties involved. 0004 of current invention’s PG-pub also indicates that shipping service is important to people and businesses across the world. Therefore, this would clearly fall into certain methods of organizing human activities.
Applicant goes on to argue that training of models would not fall into mental process. The argument is persuasive with respect to claim 12 but not claims 1 and 14. Examiner notes claims 1 and 14’s training are outside the scope of claim. While the claim language in claims 1 and 14 includes training, the actual training is not part of claimed scope; instead, the training is used to describe characteristics of models. This is evident from Applicant’s specification. See at least Fig. 2 where training is performed at step s130 but receiving parcel data and generate estimate are performed between S140-S160. 0048 of PG-Pub goes on to describe S160 (determining delivery estimate) as a step that can be “alternatively be based on any suitable models and/or approaches” instead of using models “generated in Block S130”. Therefore, S160 does not require training of a model and instead can use an off-the-shelf model that’s previously trained. As such, it would not be reasonable to interpret “wherein each model of the plurality of models is trained using different sets of historic delivery data” to require actual training process; instead, the claim language is broad enough to encompass using a model where training of the model is performed outside the scope so long the model was previously trained with data having particular characteristic.
Therefore, 101 rejection is only withdrawn for claim 12 while being maintained for claims 1 and 14.
Regarding Applicant’s remaining argument, they’re based on training of models. Please see above regarding claim interpretation of the training limitation. Examiner would agree if training is actually performed as part of the scope (e.g., see claim 12) as opposed to being used to describe characteristics of models, it would very likely to overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments directed to art rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Kujat does not disclose a plurality of models and instead only teaches a global model. Examiner respectfully disagree. In this case, Kujat uses a global prediction model but the model further includes algorithms that is specifically trained on a per merchant basis. This is illustrated in the cited portion (17: 9-33). 17:34-55 even goes on to illustrate the capability using region where data is divided by region and data within a particular region is used to trained on a per region basis. One ordinary skilled in the art would understand this example illustrated can be similarly apply to other criteria, especially the stated “per merchant” basis. As per criteria based on accuracy of claim 14, examiner notes these trained algorithm must pass particular accuracy (or have sufficiently large dataset per 17:34-55), therefore, the selection criteria would be based on model accuracy.
Applicant goes on to argue claim 4’s updated model is the same model as previously selected and not a second model. Examiner notes claim 4 merely describes “using a second model” but does not require such second model is part of the plurality of models in claim 1. Therefore, an updated model would meet the claimed “second model”.
Applicant’s arguments are based on dependency, please see above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processing system in claim 14. In this case, despite using the word system, it’s not a generic placeholder.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, with the exception of the model being used, the rest of the body of claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In this case, the claim describes a series of step to determine a delivery estimate for a parcel. This is a business relationship as well as following rules, either of which falls within certain methods of organizing human activities. In addition, these limitation also describes a series of step of collecting data and analyzing them, which also falls into mental processes. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
As noted above, claim 1 includes the additional element of “using a model based on the set of features, wherein the model is selected from a plurality of models based on a model selection criteria, wherein each model of the plurality of models is trained using different sets of historic delivery data”. As this model is merely being used to produce a result, it is merely generally linking the abstract idea on a particular field of use. Examiner notes while claim language involves training using different data, its current language can be broadly interpreted that training are performed outside the scope of the claim where the model used contain certain characteristics. Therefore, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional element is merely generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use and would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B
As noted above in step 2A prong 2, of which the analysis is still applicable in step 2B, the additional element, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are nothing more than merely generally linking the abstract idea on a particular field of use. This wouldn’t provide a inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-11, 13-20 merely further limit the abstract idea (e.g., by introduce additional characteristic for the model) and/or contain limitations substantially similar to claim 1-11, 13, and would not be eligible over similar analysis.
Examiner notes claim 12 is eligible. Applicant may consider incorporating claim 12 into all independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kujat (US 10460332)
As per claim 1, Kujat discloses a method comprising:
receiving parcel data for a parcel (see at least Fig. 5, item 504, determine predicted delivery performance for an item. See 13:49-67 for further detail “… 504, prediction service may determine for an item … predicted delivery performances associated with a number of merchants”);
determining a set of features from the parcel data (14:1-26, “For example, for a more refined predicted delivery performance for a particular merchant, the prediction may determine contexts and conditions associated with that merchant”); and
predicting a set of delivery estimates for the parcel using a model based on the set of features, wherein the model is selected from a plurality of models, based on a model selection criteria, wherein each model of the plurality of models is trained using different sets of historic delivery data (14:1-26, “For each, some, or all of these merchants, the prediction service may determine corresponding predicted delivery performance(s).” See also 17:9-32, “Nested within that prediction, the prediction service may train the machine learning algorithm to output a predicted delivery performance per merchant … Similarly, nested within that prediction, the prediction service may train the machine learning algorithm to output a predicted delivery performance per merchant per source location … And so and so forth”).
As per claim 2, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each model of the plurality of models is trained based on historic delivery data from a single carrier (see at least 14:64-15:23, “the prediction service may interface with … a carrier that delivered the item, to retrieve the information” regarding using historic delivery data. See also 16:42-61, “Each of the past performances and associated contexts and conditions may include … a carrier conducting the delivery …” for context being limited to a particular carrier. Lastly, see 14:1-26 cited above regarding prediction limited to associated context).
As per claim 3, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein predicting a set of delivery estimates comprises determining a set of transit times and a set of corresponding confidence scores (see at least Fig. 1, column 128, predicted delivery time with a percentage of confidence being presented).
As per claim 4, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising predicting a second set of delivery estimates for the parcel using a second model (see at least Fig. 1, column 128, row 1 and row 3 where both are delivered by the same merchant (same parcel) but using different delivery method. See 16:42-61, nothing that “delivery method” in conduction with “carrier conducting the delivery” can be context used to limit training of prediction service as cited above).
As per claim 4, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising predicting a second set of delivery estimates for the parcel using a second model (see at least Fig. 1, column 128, row 1 and row 3 where both are delivered by the same merchant (same parcel) but using different delivery method. See 16:42-61, nothing that “delivery method” in conduction with “carrier conducting the delivery” can be context used to limit training of prediction service as cited above).
As per claim 5, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the second set of delivery estimates is determined based on a second set of features for the parcel, different from the set of features (See 16:42-61, nothing that “delivery method” in conduction with “carrier conducting the delivery” can be context used to limit training of prediction service as cited above).
As per claim 6, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the model is trained on historic delivery data for a first service level and the second model is trained on historic delivery data for a second service level, wherein the method further comprises selecting a service level based on the set of delivery estimates and the second set of delivery estimates (See 16:42-61, nothing that “delivery method” in conduction with “carrier conducting the delivery” can be context used to limit training of prediction service as cited above. See also 5:18-39, “Eager to get the camera early in the day …, the consumer may select the by ground option of Merchant ABC”)
Alternatively, as per claim 4, Kujat also discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising predicting a second set of delivery estimates for the parcel using a second model (see 21:4-45, where progress is monitored including location using barcode scans and prediction on deviation is detected and modeled. See 2:58-65 where model can be dynamically computed)
As per claim 7, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising determining a final delivery estimate based on the set of delivery estimates and the second set of delivery estimates (see 21:4-45, where progress is monitored including location using barcode scans and prediction on deviation is detected and modeled).
As per claim 8, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of delivery estimates is determined based on a first origin and destination pair for the parcel, a second set of delivery estimates is determined based on a second origin and destination pair for the parcel, and a final delivery estimate is determined based on the set of delivery estimates and the second set of delivery estimates (see 21:4-45, where progress is monitored including location using barcode scans and prediction on deviation is detected and modeled).
As per claim 9, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the model selection criteria comprise an accuracy criterion (Kujat, 18:35-55, level of certainty being used as a metric to decide if pattern can be used to generate prediction).
As per claim 10, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the model selection criteria comprise a set of confidence levels for each model of the plurality of models (Kujat, 18:35-55, level of certainty being used as a metric to decide if pattern can be used to generate prediction).
As per claim 11, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein determining a set of confidence levels for each model comprises evaluating each model of the plurality of models using a different set of historical delivery data (see at least 18:35-55 where hierarchies of data sets can be considered at each hierarchy).
As per claim 12, Kujat further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising training each model of the plurality of models based on different sets of historical delivery data at a predetermined interval (20:21-30, noting update can be performed based on time intervals; 17:9-55 regarding algorithm trained on per merchant basis).
Claim 14 contain limitations substantially similar to claim 1 and 9 and would be rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
As per claim 15, Kujat further discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the parcel data is received via an API interface (4:34-41, API use is apparent).
Claims 17-20 contains limitations substantially similar to claims 8-12 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Kujat (US 10460332) in view of Richter (US 20120254084).
As per claim 13, Kujat does not but Richer teaches wherein each model of the set of models comprises a neural network (see at least Richter, 0039, regarding using neural network for prediction)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to apply Richter’s known technique of using neural network to make predictions with Kujat’s prediction model for the purpose of achieving a desired level of precision (Richter: 0039)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kujat (US 10460332) in view of Phillips (US 20170132617)
As per claim 16, Kujat discloses a monitoring system for monitoring progress based on status update (21:4-45). Kujat further discloses API uses are apparent for one ordinary skilled in the art (4:34-31). Kujat, however, does not disclose wherein the parcel data is automatically received via webhooks. Phillips teaches using webhooks to automatically generate status updates that works with API (0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Phillips use of status update using webhook with Kujat’s API that can be used to monitor status for the purpose of automating status update.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11392967, 11514396, 11694154, 11810134, 1229791, 9953332 in view of prior arts cited above in 102/103 rejection.
In this case, each and every one of the Patent identified above discuss selecting multiple model to predict parcel transit time. In general, these claims substantially includes limitations that are recited in claim 1 of present invention and any difference(s) are obvious in view of prior art cited above and they’re combinable over similar rationale set forth above.
Examiner notes the above are double patenting rejection with reference to patented cases.
Claims 1-20 are also provisionally rejected over broadest claims in application 18134901, 184173863, 18628360, 18693867, 18960421 in view of prior arts cited above in 102/103 rejection over substantially similar reasons.
This portion of rejection identified above is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights