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 the Claims
This is in response to a letter for a patent filed 31 January 2025 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination. Claim 1 has been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 05/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner. A copy of the PTO-1449 is attached hereto.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and Claims 11-18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 11, and 19 substantially recites:
receiving input information corresponding to allocating one or more containers in one or more trucks for delivery from a ship point to one or more distribution centers, the one or more containers including one or more items;
determining one or more lanes that correspond to one or more delivery routes for the one or more trucks between the ship point and the one or more distribution centers based on the input information;
determining a respective priority measurement for each of the one or more trucks;
determining a respective route plan for each respective truck of the one or more trucks based on the respective priority measurement, the respective route plan including a respective listing of each of the one or more trucks and an associated lane from the one or more lanes the respective truck is to navigate to one of the one or more distribution centers; and
transmitting the respective route plans to the ship point to enable the one or more trucks to deliver the one or more containers from the ship point to the one or more distribution centers. The aforementioned limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by a Mental Process and/or Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed by a Mental Process (determining, determining, and determining) and/or Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, determining, determining, determining, and transmitting).
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements: “a system,” “a processor,” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium”; claim 11 recites the additional elements: “computer-implemented”; and claim 19 recites the additional elements: “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” and “a processor” to perform the “receiving”, “determining,” “determining,” “determining,” and “transmitting” steps. The claimed computer components in the steps of claims 1, 11, and 19 are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “a system,” “a processor,” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 1; “computer-implemented” in claim 11; and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” and “a processor” in claim 19 performing the “receiving”, “determining,” “determining,” “determining,” and “transmitting”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (i.e., “a system,” “a processor,” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 1; “computer-implemented” in claim 11; and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” and “a processor” in claim 19). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., “a system,” “a processor,” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 1; “computer-implemented” in claim 11; and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” and “a processor” in claim 19”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Further, in regards to the “processor” the “receiving” and “transmitting” limitations in claims 1 and 19 are just mere data gathering, and also are characterized as transmitting or receiving data over a network and insignificant post-solution activity and are also recited at a high level or generality, and merely automates the receiving and transmitting steps.
Step 2B
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the (“system,” “processor,” and “non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 1; “computer-implemented” steps in claim 11; and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” and “a processor” in claim 19 performing the “receiving”, “determining,” “determining,” “determining,” and “transmitting” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, the independent claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claims 2- 5, 7, 12-15, 17the limitations merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Dependent claims 2 and 12 recite the input information includes ship point information, lane information, and order information. Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite the ship point information includes minimum constraints on a number of trucks for the ship point, maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point, minimum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and a corresponding distribution center, and maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and the corresponding distribution center. Dependent claims 4 and 14 recite the lane information includes pairing information for the ship point and each of the one or more distribution centers, and configuration information for a truck. Dependent claims 5 and 15 recite the order information includes numerical attributes for items in at least one order, categorical attributes for the items in the at least one order, quantity information for the items in the at least one order, and inventory information for the items in the at least one order. Dependent claims 7 and 17 recites the available quantity is determined based on a summation of Projected OnHand, and truck planning optimization Order Quantity. wherein the first data plan is a metered plan, and the second data plan is a hybrid metered and pooled plan based on a tiered usage system. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-5, 7, 12-15, and 17, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 6 and 16, the recitation, “determining the respective priority measurement for each of the one or more trucks includes using an equation… is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a Mental Process as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 8 and 18, the recitation, “determining the respective priority measurement for each of the one or more trucks further comprises determining a respective truck importance for each of the one or more trucks using an equation…is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a Mental Process as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 9 and 19, the recitation, “receiving set information, the set information including: first set information corresponding to the one or more trucks for the one or more lanes associated with the ship point; second set information corresponding to the one or more trucks for the one or more lanes associated with each of the one or more distribution centers; and third set information corresponding to the one or more distribution centers” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 1 and 11 respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 10 and 20, the recitation, “determining the respective route plan for each of the one or more trucks includes using an equation…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity” as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7, 12-15, and 17 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-5, 7, 12-15, and 17, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khasis (US PG Pub. 2018/0158020 A1) in view of Hance et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0066035 A1).
As per claims 1 , 11, and 19, Khasis discloses a system and method, comprising a processor (Khasis: [0039]) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computing instructions (Khasis [0041]) that, when executed on the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Khasis: [0092]) comprising:
Khasis: [0051]-[0052] Typically, a delivery fleet will begin with a number of delivery jobs to perform with a set number of assets in the fleet. Each delivery job will usually comprise a pickup location, where a load or cargo has to be loaded onto the vehicle, and a delivery location, where a load or cargo has to be delivered to, and unloaded from, the asset. For example, when a driver starts to travel to a destination, a vehicle trip begins. When the driver reaches the destination and delivers the package, the vehicle trip ends. Thus, a full delivery route will often comprise a number of vehicle trips or delivery jobs. Telematics data may be captured by a fleet management system from the vehicles in the fleet as they execute various delivery routes.), also see [0040],[0047];
determining one or more lanes that correspond to one or more delivery routes for the one or more trucks between the ship point and the one or more distribution centers based on the input information (Khasis: [0053] Location information may comprise an asset identifier, coordinates, direction, and speed. Operation 820 calculates delivery duration for each destination or delivery job. A job that is in progress may comprise an estimated remaining time to completion, and a job that has not begun may comprise an estimated total time required to complete. Delivery duration may typically be the time to unload or deliver an inventory at a destination, and/or load the asset for transporting to a next destination. Operation 830 calculates estimated arrival times to all pending destinations. For example, a delivery job that is currently in progress will comprise an estimated arrival time of zero. Operation 840 determines delivery routes for all assets to fulfill all remaining destinations. Assets may be assigned destinations or delivery jobs based on estimated delivery duration from operation 820 such that multiple assets arrive at the destination or delivery job when the previous asset's delivery duration reaches zero);
determining a respective priority measurement for each of the one or more trucks (Khasis: [0060]-[0061] The system and the method of the present invention may take into consideration these different factors to optimize the logistic operation, such as by assigning the appropriate asset, e.g., driver or vehicle, to carry out the functions, and may dynamically and continually update the operation as it progresses. In addition to asset or element compatibility determinations based on their operational constraints, consideration may be given to financial constraints, environment constraints and/or geographic constraints to compute the optimized operational procedure).;
determining a respective route plan for each respective truck of the one or more trucks based on the respective priority measurement, the respective route plan including a respective listing of each of the one or more trucks and an associated lane from the one or more lanes the respective truck is to navigate to one of the one or more distribution centers (Khasis: [0064] In some embodiments, the system and the method may assign a different weight or priority to financial constraints, operational constraints, environment constraints and geographic constraints. For example, a financial constraint such as a predetermined amount of funds dedicated to a project or transit operation may take precedence over an operational constraint whereby an asset that may not be the best choice for a transit operation may be used, such as, e.g., shipping by multiple trucks over thousands of miles over an airplane. In this case, a single airplane may have a larger capacity and be able to carry a larger load than the trucks, however, due to its higher cost-of-use the trucks may be used instead. In one embodiment, financial constraints may have the highest priority, followed by geographic constraints, environment constraints, and then operational constraints); . [0055] The asset compatibility calculations and determinations may be based on operation unit data including, but not limited to, e.g., driver data, road data, building data, vehicle data, and environmental data… Road data may identify the different road networks in a driving route, e.g., highway, freeway, slow zone, parking structure, overpass and underpass… Vehicle data may identify a means of travel, e.g., aerial, terrestrial, or marine, and whether the vehicle is autonomous, e.g., self-driving or human operated); [0056] The system and the method may map and analyze existing relationships between the operation units of a fleet and the one or more assets or elements associated with each of the units, and may provide transit route recommendations based on compatibility of the assets or elements); and ([0058] The map may comprise operation unit A 900, operation unit B 902, operation unit C 904, and operation unit D 906 corresponding to, e.g., driver data, road data, building data, vehicle data, and environmental data. Each operation unit may be associated with one or more assets or elements…Road data may identify the different road networks in a driving route, e.g., highway, freeway, slow zone, parking structure, overpass and underpass... Vehicle data may identify a means of travel, e.g., aerial, terrestrial, or marine, and whether the vehicle is autonomous, e.g., self-driving or human operated).and
transmitting the respective route plans to the ship point to enable the one or more trucks to deliver the one or more containers from the ship point to the one or more distribution centers (Khasis: [0088] Logistic module 1608 may be involved in planning, implementing and controlling the transport and storage of goods and services from the point of origin to a logistics company, and from the company to a point of consumption, such as, e.g., an end user. Logistic module 1608 may provide complete visibility into how finished goods are stored and distributed, such as, e.g., adherence to global trade compliances, replenishment planning, order processing, transportation, security, fleet management, reverse-logistics, returns, and route planning. It may operate within one company or multiple companies to manage the transport of a product from the supplier to the end user, such as, e.g., to automate load balancing of shipment cargos, coordinate a plurality of warehouses and transportation channels, and provide travel route analysis..
Khasis does not explicitly disclose, however, Hance et al. discloses:
receiving input information corresponding to allocating one or more containers in one or more trucks for delivery (Hance et al [0052] Warehouse and supply-chain coordinator 100 can provide user interfaces enabling review, creation, updating, and deletion of data used to operate the supply chain and can send and receive messages to control various entities, such as, but not limited to, robots, vehicles, and access control systems such as gates providing ingress and/or egress to a building or other locations. Warehouse and supply-chain coordinator 100 also can control various resources used in operating a warehouse and/or a supply-chain, such as access to a facility, time slots for loading/unloading vehicles, storage locations or “slots”, parking spots, cargo capacity of a vehicle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Khasis to include inputting container allocation information as taught by Hance et al. to provide the user the ability to enable the review, creation, updating, and deletion of data used to operate the supply chain or control the resources used in operating a warehouse and/or a supply-chain (Hance et al.: [0052]).
As per claims 2, 12, and 20, Khasis in view of Hance et al. discloses the system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium of claims 1, 11, and 19. Khasis further discloses wherein the input information includes ship point information (Khasis: [0011] In another aspect, the present invention discloses a system and a method for providing inventory location identification, and dynamic modification of transit operations or routes to alter one or more destinations of the inventory while it is in transit to a new location at any time),
lane information (Khasis: [0055] Road data may identify the different road networks in a driving route, e.g., highway, freeway, slow zone, parking structure, overpass and underpass), and
order information (Khasis: [0012] A server may control and coordinate the processes involved in distributing the product from suppliers to the customers, including generation of purchase orders and payment of invoices)..
As per claims 4 and 14, Khasis in view of Hance et al. discloses the system and method of claims 2 and 12, respectively. Khasis does not explicitly disclose, however, Hance et al. discloses:
wherein the lane information includes pairing information for the ship point and each of the one or more distribution centers, and configuration information for a truck (Hance et al. [0034] The supply chain can also include locations, such as supplier locations, warehouses, and retail locations, connected by a plurality of paths such as roads, water shipping routes, and/or airways, where at least one pallet is conveyed from a first location to the second location using a vehicle traveling on a path from the first location to a second location, where at least one of the first location and the second location includes a warehouse capable of storing the at least one pallet, and where the vehicle includes an autonomous vehicle configured to be controlled by the warehouse and supply-chain coordinator); and (Hance et al: [0040] The warehouse and supply-chain coordinator can coordinate groups of robots efficiently to optimize the loading and unloading of vehicles at a facility, such as a loading dock of a warehouse. In particular, the warehouse and supply-chain coordinator can precisely time the arrival of a pallet at the front of the loading dock when a truck arrives and economically utilize the space at the loading dock; e.g., as a queue of pallets. By planning/coordinating future robot actions the warehouse and supply-chain coordinator can precisely determine where a pallet destined for shipment is located, that is, when the pallet destined for shipment will arrive in the queue, when the pallet destined for shipment will be slotted in the front of the queue for immediate shipment, etc). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Khasis to include the lane information as taught by Hance et al. to show one or more facilities connected by zero or more paths where the path between facilities can be used to communicate goods, vehicles, information, and/or other material objects between connected facilities for delivery planning (Hance et al.: [0178]).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khasis (US PG Pub. 2018/0158020 A1) in view of Hance et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0066035 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above and in further view of Gravelle et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0398059 A1).
As per claims 5 and 15, Khasis discloses the system and method of claims 2 and 12, respectively. Khasis in view of Hance et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the order information includes numerical attributes for items in at least one order, categorical attributes for the items in the at least one order, quantity information for the items in the at least one order, and inventory information for the items in the at least one order.
However, Gravelle et al. discloses in [0019] In a related order line items table 517, each record contains a line item number, the order number of the customer order to which that line item belongs, the Product_ID(s) of a product type required to fulfill that line item of the customer order, and a quantity of that product type to be fulfilled for that line item. The Customer_ID of each customer is also stored in a separate customer table 515 along with all other customer account information, including the name, address, and billing information of each customer); also see [0109] FIGS. 5B and 5F). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Khasis in view of Hance et al. to include order information as taught by Gravelle et al. for placing items into containers for delivery in order to determine the status of fulfillment.
Prior Art Discussion
As per claims 3, 6-10, 13, 16-18, the best prior art listed below, fails to fairly disclose or teach the limitations.
1) Khasis (US PG Pub. 2018/0158020 A1) discloses an autonomous supply and distribution chain;
2) Hance et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0066035 A1) discloses a warehouse and supply-chain coordinator;
3) Gravelle et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0398059 A1) discloses a multi-entity inventory management using storage bin and inventory reassignment;
4) Brazeau (US Patent No. 10,315,231 B1) discloses attribute-based container selection for inventory
5) Lafrance (US Patent No. 10,832,206 B2) discloses a system and method for managing and optimizing delivery networks
As per claims 3, 6-10, 13, 16-18, the best Foreign art listed below, fails to fairly disclose or teach the limitations.
1) Huang et al. (CN 113496297 A) discloses distribution route planning method and device
As per claims 3, 6-10, 13, 16-18, the NPL Prior art listed below, fails to fairly disclose or teach the limitations.
1) “How to measure and optimize delivery performance”, July 2, 2021, elogii.com, 13 pages.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Brazeau (US Patent No. 10,315,231 B1) discloses attribute-based container selection for inventory
2) Lafrance (US Patent No. 10,832,206 B2) discloses a system and method for managing and optimizing delivery networks
3) “How to measure and optimize delivery performance”, July 2, 2021, elogii.com, 13 pages.
4) Huang et al. (CN 113496297 A) discloses distribution route planning method and device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights