DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 27 January 2026.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-14, 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 4 recites “options comprises by adding”. This appears to be a typographical error of “options by adding”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 11-18 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 19-20 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
obtaining information regarding a network that includes a distribution of transit miles for inbound loads located within a distance of each facility of multiple facilities;
orchestrating by:
triggering an instance to create multiple spatial partitions by dividing the network into a plurality of subnetworks, of the network, to be solved independently;
triggering, in parallel, multiple instances for a respective instance of the multiple instances to solve a corresponding subnetwork of the plurality of subnetworks, and
triggering an instance to select a final set of loads to be used from among a combined pool of candidate loads generated from the multiple instances, based on shipment consolidation options for the inbound loads; and
generating a transit plan, based on the final set of loads.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to spatially partitioning a cross-dock transportation network. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior of shipping an item between entities, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computing instructions that, are executed on the processor; a coordinating engine or the system; functional engines; a partition engine; a load generation engine; parallel processing across one or more processors; and a load picking engine. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does 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(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 2-10 are ineligible.
Claim 11 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 11 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 11 recites the following additional elements: a computer, functional engines, a partition engine, a load generation engine, parallel processing across one or more processors. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 12-18 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 11. Therefore, claim(s) 12-18 are ineligible.
Claim 19 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 19 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 19 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions that, when executed on a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, functional engines, a partition engine, a load generation engine, and using parallel processing across one or more processors. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 20 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 19. Therefore, claim(s) 20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulman (US 20240078504 A1) in further view of VanEaton (US 10896397 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Dulman teaches a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computing instructions that, when executed on the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Paragraph [0006] “a processor and a memory storing computer-executable instructions.”; Paragraph [0076] “non-transitory data storage for the computing system 1100.”) comprising:
orchestrating, by the coordinating engine, functional engines (Fig. 2) by:
triggering an instance of a partition engine, of the functional engines, to create multiple spatial partitions by dividing the network into a plurality of subnetworks, of the network to be solved independently by a load generation engine of the functional engines; (Paragraph [00045] “the method 300 further includes performing a clustering process (step 308). In example implementations a k-means clustering process may be used, where a known number of clusters is created within a given geographical area associated with the delivery locations. […] the clustering process involves identifying centroid locations, […] Each centroid and associated delivery locations will correspond to a cluster, […] as well as the total distance among the delivery locations”; Paragraph [0035] “a clustering and routing process may be performed at the capacity constrained clustering and routing engine 102”; Fig. 2; step 308 of Fig. 3)
triggering, in parallel and using parallel processing across one or more processors, multiple instances of the load generation engine for a respective instance, of the multiple instances of the load generation engine, to solve a corresponding subnetwork of the plurality of subnetworks, (Paragraph [0061] “the cluster assignment may be performed for each delivery location […] concurrently”; Paragraph [0083] “two or more operations can be performed concurrently […] The disclosed processes can be repeated.”; Paragraph [0035] “a clustering and routing process may be performed at the capacity constrained clustering and routing engine 102”; Fig. 2) and
triggering an instance of a load picking engine, of the functional engines, to select a final set of loads to be used, from among a combined pool of candidate loads generated from the multiple instances of the load generation engine, based on shipment consolidation options for the inbound loads; (Paragraph [0023] “the clustering process described herein will assign individual packages, or deliveries to each cluster.”; Paragraph [0026] “The sortation center 16 may receive items from the different retail locations, and consolidate those items for delivery to customer locations, also referred to as delivery locations 20”; Paragraph [0029] “The clustering process may group delivery locations into clusters 50, with each cluster being representatives of a collection of delivery locations that is able to be serviced by a single delivery vehicle, e.g., delivery vehicles 30 as shown.”; Paragraph [0048] “the method 300 further includes assessment of the solution, including any modifications to the solution, relative to be applied constraints and any general goals of the clustering and routing process (step 314).”; Fig. 2 and 3; Examiner notes the system modifies the clustering of the packages and eventually selects a final clustering of the packages to generate the transit plan for the carriers.) and
generating a transit plan, based on the final set of loads. (Paragraph [0023] “the clustering process described herein will assign individual packages, or deliveries to each cluster.”; Paragraph [0050] “If the clustering and routing solution is determined to be acceptable, the capacity constrained clustering and routing engine 102 may output the routes to transportation management system 200, for communication with external carriers (e.g. delivery users 42). […] The instructions may include delivery windows, including dates/times of pickup of packages, as well as the routing information and delivery addresses.”)
Dulman does not teach:
obtaining, by a coordinating engine of the system, information regarding a network that includes a distribution of transit miles for inbound loads located within a distance of each facility of multiple facilities.
However VanEaton teaches:
obtaining, by a coordinating engine of the system, information regarding a network that includes a distribution of transit miles for inbound loads located within a distance of each facility of multiple facilities. (Col. 12, lines 23-35 “ each concentric map may show network balances for defined geographical areas within the concentric map for a given day drive time from a selected area. For example, 0-600 miles from the selected area being in the innermost circle and displaying network balances for current day, 601-1,200 miles from selected area in a larger circle area/annulus displaying network balances for a next or second day, and 1,201-1,800 miles from selected area in an even larger circle area/annulus displaying network balances for a third day.”; Col. 5, lines 16-14 “ the network balance is determined as the difference between the inbound truck capacity and outbound load capacity.”; Col. 2, lines 18-33 “The load capacity can be determined by a combination of inputs from the carrier that include the miles between origin and destination” of VanEaton; Examiner notes VanEaton receives inbound truck capacity data from various distance ranges from an area. This is a distribution for inbound loads located within a distance of each area. The capacity is determined by the transit miles, so a distribution of transit miles is received.)
This operation of VanEaton is applicable to the system of Dulman as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing the distribution of packages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dulman to apply the obtaining information regarding a network that includes distribution of transit miles for inbound loads located within a distance of each area as taught by VanEaton to the facilities of Dulman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dulman in order to plan a balanced freight network of a geographic area (see Col. 39-57 of VanEaton).
Regarding claim 2, Dulman in view of VanEaton teaches the system of claim 1.
Dulman does not teach:
wherein the distribution of transit miles for the inbound loads is based on at least one of (i) vendor locations in proximity to facility locations or (ii) a list of states in which the facility locations are located.
However VanEaton teaches:
wherein the distribution of transit miles for the inbound loads is based on at least one of (i) vendor locations in proximity to facility locations or (ii) a list of states in which the facility locations are located. (Col. 3, ll. 46-56 “Defined Geographic Area—A joined set of geographic points or boundaries, like […] states.”; Col. 12, lines 23-35 “ each concentric map may show network balances for defined geographical areas” of VanEaton)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Dulman is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Dulman in view of VanEaton teaches the system of claim 1. Dulman further teaches:
wherein the multiple spatial partitions are based on a base region for a facility of the multiple facilities. (Paragraph [00045] “the method 300 further includes performing a clustering process (step 308). In example implementations a k-means clustering process may be used, where a known number of clusters is created within a given geographical area associated with the delivery locations. […] the clustering process involves identifying centroid locations, […] Each centroid and associated delivery locations will correspond to a cluster, […] as well as the total distance among the delivery locations”; step 308 of Fig. 3)
Claims 11-13:
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are directed to a computer-implemented method. Claim(s) 11-13 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1-3, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 11-13 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1-3, respectively.
Claim 19-20:
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim(s) 19-20 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1-2, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1-2, respectively.
Claim(s) 4-10 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulman (US 20240078504 A1) in further view of VanEaton (US 10896397 B1) in further view of Ma (US 20180012287 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Dulman in view of VanEaton teaches the system of claim 3. Dulman in view of VanEaton does not teach:
wherein an expandable radius of the base region captures an area of a target coverage percentage for the facility.
However, Ma teaches:
wherein an expandable radius of the base region captures an area of a target coverage percentage for the facility. (Paragraph [0177] “Based on the delivery area information, the information provider 14a determines whether the selected store offers shipping abroad from the first country (Step S92).”; Paragraph [0182] “When the proportion of the actual sales of substitutes for items of a target store, among the plurality of stores, to the target store's actual sales is greater than or equal to a predetermined percentage, the system controller 14 outputs recommendation information recommending to the target store that the target store offer shipping outside the area indicated by the delivery area information of the target store.” of Ma)
This operation of Ma is applicable to the system of Dulman as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a shipping network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the base region of Dulman to incorporate an expandable radius capturing an area of a target coverage percentage as taught by Ma. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dulman in order to increase the sales performance of the vendors (see paragraph [0175] of Ma).
Regarding claim 5, Dulman in view of VanEaton in further view of Ma teaches the system of claim 4. Dulman in view of VanEaton does not teach:
wherein the target coverage percentage is a percentage that is greater than or equal to a number of covered historical loads at the facility divided by a number of total historical loads for the facility.
However Ma teaches:
wherein the target coverage percentage is a percentage that is greater than or equal to a number of covered historical loads at the facility divided by a number of total historical loads for the facility. (Paragraph [0182] “When the proportion of the actual sales of substitutes for items of a target store, among the plurality of stores, to the target store's actual sales is greater than or equal to a predetermined percentage, the system controller 14 outputs recommendation information recommending to the target store that the target store offer shipping outside the area indicated by the delivery area information of the target store.” of Ma; Examiner notes the percentage of actual (i.e. historical) sales can be less than a predetermined percentage.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Ma is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Dulman in view of VanEaton in further view of Ma teaches the system of claim 5. Dulman in view of VanEaton does not teach:
wherein the covered historical loads comprise historical loads for which a vendor location is either (i) within the expandable radius of a first distance to the facility, or (ii) located in a list of states covered by the vendor location of the facility.
However, Ma teaches:
wherein the covered historical loads comprise historical loads for which a vendor location is either (i) within the expandable radius of a first distance to the facility, or (ii) located in a list of states covered by the vendor location of the facility. (Paragraph [0004] “a foreign seller limits its delivery area to the country in which the seller is located.” Paragraph [0062] “Each country is an example of an area […] The area may be, for example, […] a state” of Ma)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Ma is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Dulman in view of VanEaton in further view of Ma teaches the system of claim 6. Dulman in view of VanEaton does not teach:
wherein, when the percentage is less than the target coverage percentage, the expandable radius of the first distance is expanded to the facility.
However, Ma teaches:
wherein, when the percentage is less than the target coverage percentage, the expandable radius of the first distance is expanded to the facility. (Paragraph [0182] “When the proportion of the actual sales of substitutes for items of a target store, among the plurality of stores, to the target store's actual sales is greater than or equal to a predetermined percentage, the system controller 14 outputs recommendation information recommending to the target store that the target store offer shipping outside the area indicated by the delivery area information of the target store. Consequently, this can prompt the target store to offer item shipping to an area to which it has not offered shipping.” of Ma; Examiner notes the coverage is expanded to include other specific delivery destinations.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Ma is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, Dulman in view of VanEaton in further view of Ma teaches the system of claim 6. Dulman further teaches:
determining the shipment consolidation options by adding a shipment to the inbound loads when a direct transit mileage from the vendor location to the facility exceeds a predetermined threshold. (Paragraph [0026] “The sortation center 16 may receive items from the different retail locations, and consolidate those items for delivery to customer locations, also referred to as delivery locations 20. Additionally, any retail location 14 that has sufficient stock of an item or items that are part of an order for delivery may directly deliver those items to one or more delivery locations 20 that are proximate to the particular retail location 14.”; Paragraph [0065] “A route assessment may be performed to determine if the route length limit is exceeded within a given cluster (step 510). […] If the route length limit is exceeded, the delivery location may also then be reassigned to another cluster”; Examiner notes if a route from retail location to customer is too long the customer can be assigned to a different cluster such as one that uses a sortation center.)
Regarding claim 9, Dulman in view of VanEaton teaches the system of claim 1. Dulman in view of VanEaton does not teach:
identifying shipments excluded from the multiple spatial partitions.
However, Ma teaches:
identifying shipments excluded from the multiple spatial partitions. (Paragraph [0177] “if the international shipping flag is FALSE, the information provider 14a determines that the store does not offer international shipping (NO in Step S92)”; (Paragraph [0179] “the information provider 14a adds up total amounts included in the retrieved pieces of order information to calculate the sales of the substitute items (Step S96).” of Ma)
This operation of Ma is applicable to the system of Dulman as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a shipping network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Dulman to incorporate identifying shipments excluded from the multiple spatial partitions as taught by Ma. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dulman in order to increase the sales performance of the vendors (see paragraph [0175] of Ma).
Regarding claim 10, Dulman in view of VanEaton in further view of Ma teaches the system of claim 9. Dulman further teaches:
grouping the shipments so that each group covers a number of alternate facilities; (Paragraph [0047] “the method 300 includes receiving one or more cluster or route modifications (step 312). The modifications may involve, for example, moving a delivery location from being included as a member of one cluster to being included as a member of another cluster adjacent to that cluster.”; el. 312 of Fig. 3; Examiner notes, the facilities are alternative because the moved members are being services by new facilities.) and
creating an alternate spatial partition for each group that covers the number of alternate facilities. (Paragraph [0047] “the method 300 includes receiving one or more cluster or route modifications (step 312). The modifications may involve, for example, moving a delivery location from being included as a member of one cluster to being included as a member of another cluster adjacent to that cluster.”; el. 312 of Fig. 3)
Claims 14-18
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are directed to a computer-implemented method. Claim(s) 14-18 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 4-8, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 14-18 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 4-8, respectively.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 27 January 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendment of claims 4 and 14. The claim objections of claims 4-8 and 14-18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 27 January 2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the independent claims. The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 10-12, filed 27 January 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because claim 1 provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer system used for freight planning by facilitating the computing system to take advantage of a parallel computing or distributed cloud environment, which increases processing speed and processing capabilities. MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Applicant recites the technical problem of conventional freight planning systems struggling to take advantage of a parallel computing environment. However, conventional freight planning is an abstract idea and cannot be a technical problem. As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to spatially partitioning a cross-dock transportation network. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior of shipping an item between entities, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This abstract idea on its own cannot be a technical solution. However, the Applicant further recites the abstract idea’s system is struggling to take advantage of a parallel computing environment. Parallel computing is a known process performed by generic computers. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks does not integrate the claims into a practical application. Furthermore, the Applicant is claiming an increase in processing speed and processing capabilities, but the Examiner maintains the Applicant is claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a generic computer. This does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, the coordinating engine relied upon in claim 1 is not recited in claims 11 or 19. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of claims 1-20.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 12-13, filed 27 January 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited prior art does not teach an amended feature of claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues the cited references do not teach triggering an instance of a load picking engine, of the functional engines, to select a final set of loads to be used, from among a combined pool of candidate loads generated from the multiple instances of the load generation engine, based on shipment consolidation options for the inbound loads. As recited in the above 103 rejection, the Examiner maintains that Dulman Fig 3 and associated paragraphs teach this limitation as recited. For example, paragraph [0029] explains a clustering process that groups deliveries by area. Paragraph [0048] describes assessing the clustering solutions that were created by the clustering and routing engine 102 in order to determine a final solution that will be used in delivery. These clustering solutions are associated with packages (see Paragraph [0023] of Dulman). Therefore, Dulman teaches triggering an instance of a load picking engine, of the functional engines, (see clustering and routing engine of Dulman) to select a final set of loads to be used, from among a combined pool of candidate loads generated from the multiple instances of the load generation engine, based on shipment consolidation options (see clustering options of Dulman) for the inbound loads. The Examiner maintains the 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in view of Dulman in view of VanEaton.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628