DETAILED NOTICE
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 4/29/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed has been entered.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
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.
Claims 1-20 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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. Claim limitations in this application that do not 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 for the following reasoning:
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, 11 and 19:
[functional engines]
[partition engine]
[coordinating engine]
[load generation engine]
[load picking engine]
[data persistence layer]
Since the claim limitation(s) have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the Specification for this application does not appear to link any sufficient corresponding structure to any of the various “parts” placeholder terms underlined above. All the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected for the same reasons above.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite since the means-plus-function limitations are not supported by any corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
Claims 1-20 recite the various above-mentioned “engine(s)” and “layer” recited in view of 112(f) interpretation above, in which these generic place holder terms are coupled with functional language reciting a generic placeholder lacking sufficient structure to achieve the claimed function, which render them indefinite because the means-plus limitations are not supported by any corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. There is essentially no recitation in the specification that clearly identifies the corresponding structure to perform the claimed functions.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. The claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claims 11 and 19 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
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 functional engines 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; triggering, in parallel and using parallel processing across one or more processors and using a data persistence layer configured for two or more of the functional engines to one or more of access or store data, 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; and 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; and generating a transit plan based on the final set of loads.
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people 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)). Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). Claims 1, 11 and 19 include the following additional elements:
A system, comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium;
[functional engines]
[partition engine]
[coordinating engine]
[load generation engine]
[load picking engine]
[data persistence layer]
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1-20 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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 non-obviousness.
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) in further view of VanEaton (US 10896397).
Regarding Claim 1, 11 and 19,
Dulman teaches A system and method 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, using parallel processing across one or more processors and using a data persistence layer configured for two or more of the functional engines to one or more of access and store data, 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 a data store 202 which provides access and stores data) 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.”)
Although the limitations above are disclosed by Dulman, it does not teach, 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).
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 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, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, 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. 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The Applicant recites a solution to an abstract business concept problem off conventional freight route planning systems. 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 for route optimization. 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 merely applying at a high level of generality 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, 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. Furthermore, the amendment for a data layer accessing and storing data is not a technological improvement and is generically at a high-level of generality of what computers do. Determining routing plans using generic computing technology fails to provide a practical application to the improvement of technology other than merely applying it with computer processing as a tool, therefore the claimed invention is ineligible subject matter.
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.
Conclusion
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights