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 5 February 2026.
Claims 1-2, 11, 14, 18-18, and 23-26 have been amended.
Claims 22 and 27 have been cancelled.
Claims 28-31 have been newly added.
Claims 1-21, 23-26, 28-31 are currently pending and have been examined.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner recommends in order to further prosecution, the Applicant should amend the claims as interpreted in the claim rejections and/or cancel claims 23, 25, and 26.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 recites “the -outputting”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the outputting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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:
“Apparatus configured for performing and/or controlling the method according to claim 18” in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites “an apparatus or system made up of at least two apparatuses, configured for performing and/or controlling the method according to claim 1." As recited by the claim language, it is unclear how many apparatuses are in the apparatus/system. Furthermore, it is unclear of what the system/apparatus is comprising of. For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting the claims to recite “a system comprising two or more computing devices, configured for performing the method according to claim 1.”
Claim 25 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable physical storage medium containing a computer program, comprising program instructions causing a processor to perform and/or control the method according to claim 1, when the computer program runs on the processor.” It is unclear if the method is part of the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable physical storage medium containing a computer program, comprising program instructions which are executed by a processor to perform the method according to claim 1.”
Claim 26 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable physical storage medium containing a computer program, comprising program instructions causing a processor to perform and/or control the method according to claim 18 when the computer program runs on the processor.” It is unclear if the method is part of the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable physical storage medium containing a computer program, comprising program instructions which are executed by a processor to perform the method according to claim 18”
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 1-21, 23-26, and 28-31 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 1-21, and 28-31 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process), claims 23-24 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), and 25-26 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable physical storage medium (i.e., manufacture). As such, claims 1-10, 12-13 and 15-24 and 27 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:
- determining, for each shipment from a plurality of shipments, a respective sorting destination from a plurality of sorting destinations;
- assigning, to each of the shipments from the plurality of shipments, a respective, sorting destination-specific input number;
wherein the method furthermore comprises, for at least one sorting destination of the plurality of sorting destinations:
arranging those shipments for which the sorting destination was determined into the sorting destination based on the sorting destination-specific input numbers assigned to these shipments, wherein the shipments in the sorting destination are not sorted according to the trip order;
- and determining a delivery order for the shipments arranged into the sorting destination based on shipment information; and
outputting a sequence, sorted in accordance with the delivery order of the shipments arranged into the sorting destination, of the input numbers assigned to these shipments;
-or outputting, for each of those shipments for which the sorting destination was determined, the respective assigned input number and respective shipment information, wherein a delivery order for these shipments can be determined based on the respective shipment information of the shipments.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is discusses methods for sorting shipments. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it manages the personal interactions between people with falls under “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 includes no additional elements. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional elements that 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, claim 1 does not include any additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not provide 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) 2-9, 13, 14-15, 17, and 28-31 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefore claim(s) 2-9, 13, 14-15, 17, and 28-31 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 10-12, 16, 23-26 further include the additional element(s): machine-readable information (claims 10-12), a mobile apparatus (claim 16), a system comprising two or more computing devices (claim 23), an apparatus configured for performing and/or controlling the method (claim 24), a non-transitory computer-readable physical storage medium containing a computer program, comprising program instructions causing a processor to perform and/or control the method according to claim 1, when the computer program runs on the processor (claim 25); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing a computer program, comprising program instructions causing a processor to perform and/or control the method according to claim 18 when the computer program runs on the processor (claim 26). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 10-12, 16, 23-26 is/are ineligible.
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 18:
obtaining or determining a sorted sequence of input numbers, wherein an input number is respectively assigned to one shipment from a plurality of shipments, and wherein the sequence of the input numbers is sorted according to a delivery order of the assigned shipments;
wherein determining the sorted sequence of input numbers further comprises:
obtaining, for each shipment from the plurality of shipments, the input number assigned to the respective shipment and respective shipment information, wherein based on the shipment information of the shipments, the delivery order for these shipments can be determined; and
determining a delivery order for the shipments at least based on the shipment information; and
detecting, by a delivery entity, or outputting, to a delivery entity, the input numbers in the sorted sequence, wherein the plurality of shipments is sorted according to the input numbers and is not sorted according to trip order, and wherein the delivery entity can find, based on an input number, the shipment assigned to the input number within the sorted plurality of shipments.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is discusses methods for sorting shipments. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it manages the personal interactions between people with falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 18 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 18 includes no additional elements. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 18 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 18 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, claim 18 does not include any additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 18 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 18 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 19-21 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 18. Therefore, claim(s) 19-21 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, 3-21, 23-26, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearing (US 20160042320 A1) in view of Bombaugh (US 20200346250 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dearing teaches a method comprising:
- determining, for each shipment from a plurality of shipments, a respective sorting destination from a plurality of sorting destinations; (Paragraph [0090] “The sorting module 140 can direct the items to be directed to particular bins, areas, or locations within the distribution facility and/or the item processing equipment according to the route and sequence identifier assigned to the item.”)
- assigning, to each of the shipments from the plurality of shipments, a respective, sorting destination-specific input number; (Paragraph [0085] “step 310, wherein the routing module […] assigns a sequence identifier to each item assigned to each dynamic route.”)
wherein the method furthermore comprises, for at least one sorting destination of the plurality of sorting destinations:
arranging those shipments for which the sorting destination was determined into the sorting destination based on the sorting destination-specific input numbers assigned to these shipments, (see at least Paragraph [0090] “The sorting module 140 can direct the items to be directed to particular bins, areas, or locations within the distribution facility and/or the item processing equipment according to the route and sequence identifier assigned to the item.”; Paragraph [0091] “Where a delivery facility has a rack with a plurality of bins, the central processor 110 or sorting module 140 can group sequence identifiers together and assign the grouping of sequence identifiers to one of the plurality of bins in a sorting rack.”)
and determining a delivery order for the shipments arranged into the sorting destination based on shipment information; (Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”) and
outputting a sequence, sorted in accordance with the delivery order of the shipments arranged into the sorting destination, of the input numbers assigned to these shipments; (Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
-or outputting, for each of those shipments for which the sorting destination was determined, the respective assigned input number and respective shipment information, (Paragraph [0041] “The sorting module 140 can provide a display, a printout, or other feature which provides or indicates a sequence identifier within a dynamic route created by the routing module 130.”)
wherein a delivery order for these shipments can be determined based on the respective shipment information. (Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
Dearing does not teach:
arranging those shipments for which the sorting destination was determined into the sorting destination based on the sorting destination-specific input numbers assigned to these shipments, wherein the shipments in the sorting destination are not sorted according to trip order.
However Bombaugh teaches:
wherein the shipments in the sorting destination are not sorted according to trip order. (see at least Paragraph [0072] “The items in the bins may not be in delivery sequence order.” of Bombaugh)
This step of Bombaugh is applicable to the method of Dearing as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking shipments using codes. 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 method of Dearing to incorporate the shipments in the sorting destination not sorted according to trip order as taught by Bombaugh. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dearing in order to ship a high throughput sorting of items to a plurality of destinations (see paragraph [0002] of Bombaugh).
Regarding claim 3, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 1. Dearing further teaches:
conveying the shipments to the respective determined sorting destination. (Paragraph [0089] “the sorting module 140 instructs a sorting apparatus to sort items as they are received from the scanner/reader 122, and sorted according to dynamic route and/or static route number. In some embodiments, sorting of the item may be done manually, such as by an operator.”)
Regarding claim 4, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 1. Dearing further teaches:
determining, for each of the shipments from the plurality of shipments, a respective destination address, wherein the determining of the respective sorting destination is at least based on the respective destination address. (Paragraph [0067] “the sorting module may identify the items based on a scan of the computer readable code on the item, or based on an OCR of the address. When the item is passed through the sorting module 140, the sorting module 140 queries the memory 115 to obtain the dynamic route and sequence identifier which has been assigned to and associated with the item.”; Paragraph [0090] “The sorting module 140 can direct the items to be directed to particular bins, areas, or locations within the distribution facility and/or the item processing equipment according to the route and sequence identifier assigned to the item.”)
Regarding claim 5, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 3. Dearing further teaches:
wherein one or more delivery tours are assigned to each sorting destination from the plurality of sorting destinations; (Paragraph [0050] “the rack is portable and can be rolled or loaded onto the transportation vehicle without removing the items from the bins in the rack.”) and
wherein the determining of the respective sorting destination is at least based on the determination of the delivery tour which contains the respective destination address. (Paragraph [0090] “The sorting module 140 can direct the items to be directed to particular bins, areas, or locations within the distribution facility and/or the item processing equipment according to the route”)
Regarding claim 6, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 5. Dearing further teaches:
wherein precisely one delivery tour is assigned to each sorting destination from the plurality of sorting destinations. (Paragraph [0050] “the rack is portable and can be rolled or loaded onto the transportation vehicle without removing the items from the bins in the rack.”; Paragraph [0043] “A delivery asset, such as a delivery person or carrier, can load the items associated with the dynamic route onto a delivery vehicle, and carry the mobile communication device 150 on the dynamically created route”)
Regarding claim 7, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 5. Dearing does not teach:
wherein precisely one sorting destination is assigned to a delivery tour.
However, Bombaugh teaches:
wherein precisely one sorting destination is assigned to a delivery tour. (see at least Paragraph [0040] “A sculch tray may be used by a carrier. […] A sculch tray may be used to store residual mail and may be placed in the delivery vehicle for the carrier to take on the delivery route.” of Bombaugh; Examiner notes an unsorted sculch tray is used by the carrier for their delivery route. See the claims 1 and 2 of Bombaugh where a single sculch tray is used for a group of items in a delivery tour. )
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Dearing is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 1. Dearing further teaches:
associating the respective shipment with information, wherein at least the input number is determinable based on the information. (Paragraph [0037] “The routing module 130 applies routing algorithms using the input parameters to generate dynamic routes and sequence identifiers for the items in each dynamic route.”; Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route.”)
Regarding claim 9, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 8. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the associating of the respective shipment with the information is performed by applying a label to the respective shipment, (Paragraph [0042] “the sorting module is configured to print, attach, affix, or otherwise label the items with a dynamic route or sequence identifier by using a printer or other similar device”) the method furthermore comprising:
creating the label for the respective shipment. (Paragraph [0042] “the sorting module is configured to print, attach, affix, or otherwise label the items with a dynamic route or sequence identifier by using a printer or other similar device”)
Regarding claim 10, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 8. Dearing further teaches:
wherein at least a part of the information is machine-readable. (Paragraph [0037] “Upon generating routing plans, dynamic routes, and/or sequence identifiers, the routing module 130 communicates the routing plans, dynamic routes, and/or sequence identifiers to the inventory module 120. This information may also be stored in the memory 115.”)
Regarding claim 11, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 10. Dearing further teaches:
conveying the shipments to the respective determined sorting destination, wherein the conveying of the shipment to the respective sorting destination is at least based on the machine-readable part of the information. (see at least Paragraph [0089] “the sorting module 140 instructs a sorting apparatus to sort items as they are received from the scanner/reader 122, and sorted according to dynamic route and/or static route number. In some embodiments, sorting of the item may be done manually, such as by an operator.”; Paragraph [0037] “Upon generating routing plans, dynamic routes, and/or sequence identifiers, the routing module 130 communicates the routing plans, dynamic routes, and/or sequence identifiers to the inventory module 120. This information may also be stored in the memory 115.”)
Regarding claim 12, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 10. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the arranging of the shipments into the respective sorting destination takes place in an at least partially automated manner and is at least based on the machine-readable part of the information. (Paragraph [0089] “the sorting module 140 instructs a sorting apparatus to sort items as they are received from the scanner/reader 122, and sorted according to dynamic route and/or static route number”)
Regarding claim 13, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 8. Dearing further teaches:
wherein at least a part of the information is human-readable. (Paragraph [0089] “sort items as they are received from the scanner/reader 122, and sorted according to dynamic route and/or static route number. In some embodiments, sorting of the item may be done manually, such as by an operator.”)
Regarding claim 14, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 13. Dearing further teaches:
conveying the shipments to the respective determined sorting destination, wherein the conveying of the shipments to the respective sorting destination is performed at least partially manually and is at least based on the human-readable part of the information. (see at least Paragraph [0089] “the sorting module 140 instructs a sorting apparatus to sort items as they are received from the scanner/reader 122, and sorted according to dynamic route and/or static route number. In some embodiments, sorting of the item may be done manually, such as by an operator.”)
Regarding claim 15, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 13. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the arranging of the shipments into the respective sorting destination is performed at least partially manually and is at least based on the human-readable part of the information. (Paragraph [0089] “sort items as they are received from the scanner/reader 122, and sorted according to dynamic route and/or static route number. In some embodiments, sorting of the item may be done manually, such as by an operator.”)
Regarding claim 16, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 1. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the outputting takes place to a mobile apparatus. (Paragraph [0111] “In some embodiments, the dynamic route data including bin and sequence identifiers can be downloaded to the mobile communication device 150”)
Regarding claim 17, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 1. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the shipment information contains at least the respective destination address of the shipment, (Paragraph [0036] “the inventory control module 120 receives information regarding the items that are inbound to a particular unit delivery facility. The information received can include the destination, such as the mailing address”; Paragraph [0037] “The routing module 130 receives item information […] The routing module 130 applies routing algorithms using the input parameters to generate dynamic routes and sequence identifiers for the items in each dynamic route”) and
wherein the determining of the delivery order is at least based on the trip order of the delivery tours that comprise the destination addresses. (Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
Regarding claim 18, Dearing teaches a method comprising:
obtaining or determining a sorted sequence of input numbers, wherein an input number is respectively assigned to one shipment from a plurality of shipments, and wherein the sequence of the input numbers is sorted according to a delivery order of the assigned shipments; (see at least Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
wherein determining the sorted sequence of input numbers further comprises:
obtaining, for each shipment from the plurality of shipments, the input number assigned to the respective shipment and respective shipment information, wherein based on the shipment information of the shipments, the delivery order for these shipments can be determined; (Paragraph [0037] “The routing module 130 applies routing algorithms using the input parameters to generate dynamic routes and sequence identifiers for the items in each dynamic route.”; Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
and
determining a delivery order for the shipments at least based on the shipment information; (Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
detecting, by a delivery entity, or outputting, to a delivery entity, the input numbers in the sorted sequence, wherein the plurality of shipments is sorted according to the input numbers (Paragraph [0111] “The mobile communication device 150 […] provides visual, audio, and/or tactile prompts to the carrier regarding the sequence identifier of an item to be delivered, and the location of the item in the carrier vehicle. In some embodiments, the mobile communication device 150 provides a visual or audible indication of which bin on the rack of bins the item is located. In this way, the carrier then goes to the bin and selects the item from among the plurality of items in the bin corresponding to the destination where the carrier is currently located, or which is scheduled for the next delivery along the dynamic route. […] In some embodiments, the dynamic route data including bin and sequence identifiers can be downloaded to the mobile communication device 150”)
Dearing does not teach:
detecting, by a delivery entity, or outputting, to a delivery entity, the input numbers in the sorted sequence, wherein the plurality of shipments is sorted according to the input numbers and is not sorted according to trip order and wherein the delivery entity can find, based on an input number, the shipment assigned to the input number within the sorted plurality of shipments.
However, Bombaugh teaches:
the plurality of shipments is not sorted according to trip order. (see at least paragraph [0072] “The items in the bins may not be in delivery sequence order.” of Bombaugh)
This step of Bombaugh is applicable to the method of Dearing as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking shipments using codes. 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 method of Dearing to incorporate the plurality of shipments is sorted according to the input numbers and is not sorted according to trip order as taught by Bombaugh. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dearing in order to ship a high throughput sorting of items to a plurality of destinations (see paragraph [0002] of Bombaugh).
Regarding claim 19, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 18. Dearing further teaches:
wherein, for at least a part of the plurality of shipments, shipment-related information is received together with the input number, (Paragraph [0040] “The sorting module 140 receives output, such as sequence identifiers, dynamic routes”) and
wherein for the part of the plurality of shipments, the output of the input numbers is performed together with the shipment-related information. (Paragraph [0111] “the dynamic route data including bin and sequence identifiers can be downloaded to the mobile communication device 150 at the delivery facility”)
Regarding claim 20, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 18. Dearing further teaches:
wherein only a part of the input numbers of all input numbers contained in the sorted sequence of input numbers is output, respectively, furthermore comprising:
determining which part of the input numbers of all input numbers contained in the sequence of input numbers is output. (Paragraph [0091] “The sorting module 140 may assign a subset of the sequence identifiers of the 100 items to one of the plurality of bins in the sorting rack.”; Paragraph [0111] “The mobile communication device 150 communicates turn-by-turn instructions to the carrier, and provides visual, audio, and/or tactile prompts to the carrier regarding the sequence identifier of an item to be delivered”; Examiner notes the sequence information can be output to the carrier one at a time as they are delivering items.)
Regarding claim 21, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 20. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the determining which part of the input numbers is output is based on the destination addresses of the assigned shipments and the position of the delivery entity. (Paragraph [0111] “The mobile communication device 150 communicates turn-by-turn instructions to the carrier, and provides visual, audio, and/or tactile prompts to the carrier regarding the sequence identifier of an item to be delivered […] the carrier then goes to the bin and selects the item from among the plurality of items in the bin corresponding to the destination where the carrier is currently located, or which is scheduled for the next delivery along the dynamic route.”)
Regarding claim 23, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method of claim 1. Dearing further teaches:
a system comprising two or more computing devices, configured for performing the method according to claim 1. (see at least Paragraph [0120] “A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration.”)
Regarding claim 24, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method of claim 18. Dearing further teaches an apparatus configured for performing and/or controlling the method according to claim 18 (see at least Paragraph [0119] “the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented as electronic hardware, software stored on a computer readable medium and executable by a processor, or combinations of both.”)
Regarding claim 25, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method of claim 1. Dearing further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable physical storage medium containing a computer program, comprising program instructions which are executed by a processor to perform the method according to claim 1. (see at least Paragraph [0121] “The steps of a method or algorithm disclosed herein may be implemented in a processor-executable software module which may reside on a computer-readable medium. […] the operations of a method or algorithm may reside as one or any combination or set of codes and instructions on a machine readable medium and computer-readable medium, which may be incorporated into a computer program product.”)
Regarding claim 26, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method of claim 18. Dearing further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable physical storage medium containing a computer program, comprising program instructions which are executed by a processor to perform the method according to claim 18. (see at least Paragraph [0121] “The steps of a method or algorithm disclosed herein may be implemented in a processor-executable software module which may reside on a computer-readable medium. […] the operations of a method or algorithm may reside as one or any combination or set of codes and instructions on a machine readable medium and computer-readable medium, which may be incorporated into a computer program product.”)
Regarding claim 28, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 1. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the method comprises the determining a delivery order for the shipments arranged into the sorting destination based on shipment information; (see at least Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”) and
the outputting a sequence, sorted in accordance with the delivery order of the shipments arranged into the sorting destination, of the input numbers assigned to these shipments. (see at least Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
Regarding claim 29, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 1. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the method comprises the outputting, for each of those shipments for which the sorting destination was determined, the respective assigned input number and respective shipment information, wherein a delivery order for these shipments can be determined based on the respective shipment information of the shipments. (see at least Paragraph [0041] “The sorting module 140 can provide a display, a printout, or other feature which provides or indicates a sequence identifier within a dynamic route created by the routing module 130.”; Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
Regarding claim 30, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 18. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the method comprises the obtaining a sorted sequence of input numbers. (see at least Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
Regarding claim 31, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 18. Dearing further teaches:
wherein the method comprises the determining a sorted sequence of input numbers. (see at least Paragraph [0038] “The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route.”)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearing (US 20160042320 A1) in view of Bombaugh (US 20200346250 A1), in further view of Nakazawa (US 20220083971 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Dearing in view of Bombaugh teaches the method according to claim 1. Dearing in view of Bombaugh does not teach:
wherein the respective input number of a shipment corresponds to or is related to a number of shipments determined for the respective sorting destination, wherein the number of shipments is determined upon the assignment of the respective input number of the shipment.
However, Nakazawa teaches:
wherein the respective input number of a shipment corresponds to or is related to a number of shipments determined for the respective sorting destination, wherein the number of shipments is determined upon the assignment of the respective input number of the shipment. (Paragraph [0083] “the control unit 13 creates an inventory transaction history detailed information table T2 in which a different sequence number 1’ to ‘10’ is assigned to each quantity of one for the items X on the basis of the inventory quantity.”; Fig. 6 of Nakazawa; Examiner notes, Fig 6 shows there are 10 items stored in group 1, and each of those items are given a number 1-10.)
This step of Nakazawa is applicable to the method of Dearing as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to computerized management of items in inventory. 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 method of Dearing to incorporate the respective input number of a shipment corresponds to a number of shipments for the respective sorting destination and the number of shipments being related to the input numbers as taught by Nakazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dearing in order for the user to be able to track the inventory flow (see paragraph [0128] of Nakazawa).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-10, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 1-27 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments of claims 1-27. The previous claim objections of claims 1-27 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 10, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the 112(f) invocation of claim(s) 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the invocation has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of 112(f) invocation is made in view of amendments to claim 24.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-10, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the 112(f) invocation of claim 27 has been fully considered and are persuasive due to the cancellation of claim 27. The previous 112(f) invocation of claim 27 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-11, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections of claims 2, 18-21 and 24 has been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to claims 2, 18-21 and 24. The 112(b) rejections of claims 2, 18-21 and 24 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 10-11, filed February 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendments overcome the rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is still unclear how many apparatuses are performing/controlling the method of claim 1 because the first apparatus is singular and the system comprises two or more apparatuses. It is further unclear what any of the apparatuses comprise of. The amended language of “configured for…” notes the intended use of the apparatus but not the structure or what the apparatus comprises of. Therefore, the Examiner is maintaining the 112(b) rejection of claim 23.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 10-11, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 25-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendments overcome the rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is still unclear if the method is being performed in claims 25 and 26 because the claims recite the contingent word “when”. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the 112(b) rejection of claims 25-26.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 11-17, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21, 23-26, and 28-31 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1) the Examiner did not follow compact prosecution in regards to claims 11 and 14; 2) claims 25 and 26 are eligible because they are directed to statutory subject matter; 3) the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity; 4) the claims are integrated into a practical application; 5) the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea; 6) the Examiner failed to fully Examiner dependent claims 2-9, 13, 15, and 17; 7) the Examiner fail to analyze the additional elements of claims 10, 12, 16, 23 and 24; 8) claim 18 is eligible; and 9) claim 19-21 were improperly analyzed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the applicant argues that the Examiner did not follow compact prosecution by not examining claims 11 and 14. MPEP 607.01(n) recites:
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c), a claim in dependent form must refer only to a claim or claims previously set forth. The following procedures are to be followed by examiners when faced with claims which refer to numerically succeeding claims:
If any series of dependent claims contains a claim with an improper reference to a numerically following claim which cannot be understood, the claim referring to a following claim should normally be objected to and not treated on the merits. (See Example A, below.)
Claims 11 and 14 were both improperly depended on multiple claims (claim 3 and 10 or 13, respectively) and were not treated on the merits. The multiple dependency issue has been fixed due to the amendments to claims 11 and 14, respectively. Therefore, the claims have been considered on the merits this round of prosecution.
Regarding argument 2, the Applicant argues claims 25 and 26 are eligible because they are directed to statutory subject matter. The Examiner agrees the claims are now directed to statutory subject matter, however, under further consideration, the claims are still ineligible under 101 because of they recite an abstract idea without significantly more (see the above 101 rejection).
Regarding argument 3, the Applicant argues the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity because they recite a physical movement and ordering of shipments through a facility. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. recites:
Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
As explained in the above 101 rejection, the claims recites a method of sorting shipments which is manages a personal behaviors or interactions between people. As claimed, this sorting can be performed by humans using a computer or by humans alone. It does not matter if the human is physically moving the object, managing a person physically moving an object is still managing a person’s behavior or interactions. The Applicant recites to Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples which is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception. However, the Applicant’s claims clearly recite a judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding argument 4, the Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite the physical manipulation of shipments within a facility by “arranging those shipments for which the sorting destination was determined into the sorting destination”. As explained in argument 3, as claimed the sorting can be done by a human, therefore it is a method of organizing human activity. USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Since the sorting is an abstract idea, the sorting is not an additional element and can not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Regarding argument 5, the Applicant argues the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite sorting the packages. As explained in argument 3 and 4, the sorting is not an additional element, but an abstract idea because it can be performed by a human. Therefore, the sorting can not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding argument 6, the Applicant argues the Examiner failed to fully Examiner dependent claims 2-9, 13, 15, and 17. The Examiner looked at each claim individually and determined that claims 2-9, 13, 15, and 17 only recite an abstract idea, and do not recite any additional elements. Since they only recite an abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the are not eligible.
Regarding argument 7, the Applicant argues the Examiner fail to analyze the additional elements of claims 10, 12, 16, 23 and 24. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner recited the specific additional elements recited in each of the listed claims and explained that each of these additional elements do not alone or in combination make the claims eligible because they does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims 10, 12, 16, 23, and 24 were properly rejected.
Regarding argument 8, the Applicant argues claim 18 is eligible for the same reasons as claim 1. As explained in arguments 3, 4, and 5, claim 1 is not eligible because the recited sorting is an abstract idea. Therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding argument 9, the Applicant argues claims 19-21 were improperly analyzed. As explained in argument 6, the Examiner looked at each claim individually and determined that claims 19-21 only recite an abstract idea, and do not recite any additional elements. Since they only recite an abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, they are not eligible.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 19-21, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 102 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-27 have been fully considered. Applicant argues 1) Dearing does not teach a sorting destination-specific input number in claim 1; 2) Dearing does not teach the shipments not being sorted according to the trip order in claims 1 and 18; and 3) Dearing does not teach the outputting of the sequence in claims 1 and 18. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Arguments 1 and 3 are not persuasive and argument 2 is moot due to new prior art.
Regarding argument 1, the Applicant argues Dearing does not teach a sorting destination-specific input number as defined by the specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0029] of the instant specification recites:
After the determination of the sorting destination, for example, in the data processing unit 105, a respective sorting destination-specific input number is assigned to each of the shipments from the plurality of shipments. An input number is sorting destination-specific if the input number is unique for all shipments of a sorting destination in each case (for example, at least within a predefined period of time, for example, within a day, or with respect to a sorting run), so that for each sorting destination, each determined input number can be uniquely assigned to one shipment from all shipments determined for the respective sorting destination (for example, within the predefined period of time or for this sorting run).
Paragraph [0029] of the instant specification defines a sorting-destination specific input number is unique for all shipments of a sorting destination in each case. A shipment is defined as the act of transporting goods via road, air, sea, or rail, or the cargo itself. A shipment is not limited to a single package, so two items going to one destination can be a shipment.
Paragraph [0038] of Dearing recites:
The routing module 130 may assign a sequence identifier to an item based on the delivery sequence of the items assigned to a dynamic route. The sequence numbers can be indicative of the sequence of destinations along a route. For example, the first destination on the route can be assigned a sequence identifier “1”, the second destination sequence identifier “2”, and so on. If more than one item is intended for a particular destination or recipient, the same sequence identifier can be applied to the items intended for the same destination. Items can then be loaded onto a transportation vehicle or other delivery resource according to sequence identifier or in reverse sequence identifier number. The transportation vehicle may have shelves or compartments configured to receive the items. During the delivery process, a delivery asset, such as a carrier, may retrieve from the transportation vehicle the items for a particular destination. In order to facilitate easy access to the items in the transportation vehicle the items can be loaded into the delivery vehicle in reverse sequence identifier order such that the highest numbered sequence identifier is loaded first, and the lowest numbered sequence identifier is loaded last. In this way, the lowest numbered sequence identifier, which corresponds to the item for delivery to the first delivery destination on a route can be retrieved and delivered first.
Each group of items going to a destination gets its own unique ID in the sorting destination of Dearing, so Dearing teaches a sorting destination-specific input number as claimed in claim 1. Furthermore, the definition of sorting destination specific input number as defined by Paragraph [0029] of the instant specification recites “each determined input number can be uniquely assigned to one shipment…”, which is exemplary, not an explicit, limiting definition. Furthermore, if all items in a sorting destination of Dearing are going to different addresses, all items would have unique IDs, so the IDs in Dearing can be uniquely assigned to each item from all items determined. Therefore, the Examiner maintains Dearing teaches the claims.
Regarding argument 2, the Applicant argues Dearing does not teach the shipments not being sorted according to trip order as claimed in Claims 1 and 18 of the instant invention. Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are moot due to the Examiner relying on new references not previously used for the newly amended limitation of claims 1 and 18. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards Dearing, however, the Examiner is relying on prior art, Bombaugh, to teach the amended features from the arguments. The Examiner is now rejecting the claims under new grounds of rejection. The Examiner is rejecting claims 1, 3-21, 23-26, and 28-31 under 35 USC § 103, Dearing in view of Bombaugh. The Examiner is rejecting claim 2 under Dearing in view of Bombaugh in further view of Nakazawa.
Regarding arguments 3, the Applicant argues Dearing does not teach the outputting of the sequence in claims 1 and 18. The claims recite “outputting a sequence, sorted in accordance with the delivery order of the shipments arranged into the sorting destination, of the input numbers assigned to these shipments”. This is extremely broad, because the applicant does not explain how the outputting is occurring, what is performing the outputting, and where the information is output. Outputting under its broadest reasonable interpretation is defined as the act, process, or an instance of producing. Paragraph [0038] of Dearing recites the creation, assigning of these sequence identifiers that are indicative of the sequence of destinations. Furthermore, Paragraph [0066] of Dearing recites:
The routing module 130 generates a sequence identifier for each item based on the dynamic route. The sequence identifier may indicates the delivery order of the item. That is, where 20 packages are assigned to a dynamic route, the first item to be delivered is given the sequence identifier 1, the second item receives sequence identifier 2, and so on, for each item in the dynamic route. The routing module 130 transmits the dynamic routes, dynamic route numbers, and sequence identifiers, to the central processor 110. In some embodiments, the routing module 130 also prepares turn-by-turn directions, instructions, alerts, and messages to be displayed on the mobile communication device 150, which may have an electronic mapping ability, or may be a GPS enabled smartphone or other similar mobile computing device. The central processor 110 associates the computer readable codes for each item on each route with the dynamic route number and the sequence identifier, and stores this information in the memory 115.
Paragraph [0066] of Dearing explains that the sequence identifiers are output to the central processor. Paragraph [0111] of Dearing recites:
As described above, as the carrier or other delivery resource delivers items along its route, the dynamic route is communicated to the mobile communication device 150. The mobile communication device 150 communicates turn-by-turn instructions to the carrier, and provides visual, audio, and/or tactile prompts to the carrier regarding the sequence identifier of an item to be delivered, and the location of the item in the carrier vehicle. In some embodiments, the mobile communication device 150 provides a visual or audible indication of which bin on the rack of bins the item is located. In this way, the carrier then goes to the bin and selects the item from among the plurality of items in the bin corresponding to the destination where the carrier is currently located, or which is scheduled for the next delivery along the dynamic route. The mobile communication device 150 can retrieve the bin information for the items from the memory 115 via a communications link. In some embodiments, the dynamic route data including bin and sequence identifiers can be downloaded to the mobile communication device 150 at the delivery facility and be stored locally on the mobile communication device 150.
Paragraph [0111] of Dearing shows that while the carrier is completing the route, the sequence identifier of the next package on the route is shows to the driver in order of the delivery route. Therefore the Examiner maintains that Dearing teaches outputting a sequence in several ways.
With regards to claims 2-21, 23-26, and 28-31, the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence on claims 1 and 18. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1 and 18. Therefore, claims 2-21, 23-26, and 28-31 remain rejected.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 21-23, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Dearing in view of Nakazawa does not teach the subject matter of claim 2. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., all input numbers to be the inventory quantity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim recites wherein the respective input number of a shipment corresponds to or is related to a number of shipments determined for the respective sorting destination, wherein the number of shipments is determined upon the assignment of the respective input number of the shipment. The claim only requires that the input number of a shipment is related to a number of shipments. This does not mean that the number represents the exact number of shipments. Paragraph [0083] of Nakazawa recites:
In addition, as described earlier, the control unit 13 creates an inventory transaction history detailed information table T2 in which a different sequence number “1” to “10” is assigned to each quantity of one for the items X on the basis of the inventory quantity. In addition, the control unit 13 sets “1” that is the group number set in the inventory transaction history information table T1a, in the storage group number fields of these records. Also, the control unit 13 sets “0” in the allocation flag fields of the records.
Fig. 6 of Nakazawa shows that each sequence number aligns with one package, so the sequence number relates to the number of packages in inventory. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Nakazawa teaches the respective input number of a shipment corresponds to or is related to a number of shipments determined for the respective sorting destination, wherein the number of shipments is determined upon the assignment of the respective input number of the shipment because the sequence number is used to determine how many shipments are in inventory. The Examiner further maintains that one of the ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of Dearing with the sequence numbers of Nakazawa because both are directed to computerized management of items in inventory. Furthermore, as explained above (Argument 1 of the Arguments regarding the 102 rejections and Paragraph [0038] of Dearing), under the broadest reasonable interpretation of shipment, the number of shipments in Dearing does align with the number of shipments (see paragraph [0038] of Dearing). Therefore, you would be able to substitute the sequence numbers of Dearing with the sequence numbers of Nakazawa in order to determine the number of shipments. In conclusion, the Examiner maintains that Dearing in view of Bombaugh in further view of Nakazawa teaches the claimed invention of claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page(s) 23-24, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 have been fully considered but are moot due to the Examiner relying on new references not previously used for the newly amended limitation of claim 7. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards Conard, however, the Examiner is relying on prior art, Bombaugh, to teach the amended features from the arguments. The Examiner maintains the 35 USC § 103 claim rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 under Dearing in view of Bombaugh. The change was necessitated by the amendment to claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights