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 a non-final, first office action in response to the claims filed 02/26/2025.
Claims 1 – 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Novel/Nonobvious Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 18 are not rejected over the prior art. The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the instant claimed invention.
Shoemaker et al. (US 20100274609 A1) teaches a system and method for simulating shipment routing based on a variety of package routing plans as well as the total number of packages shipped to each hub in order to identify shipping routes along which certain shipments may by-pass the sorting process of regional shipping hubs (See, e.g., [0004-0005] & [0072-0073]).
Chakraborty et al. (US 20230304806 A1) teaches a system and method for vehicle route optimization based on a graph of service location nodes and edges representing a travel cost metric between service location nodes, with each service location node having an associated service weighting value indicating quantity of shipments associated with each service location node (See, e.g., [0002] & [0024]).
Reed et al. (US 20160086118 A1) teaches a system and method for routing optimization based on assembling single or multi-stop truckloads of products and assigning routes to shipments to maximize a quantity of freight comprising each truckload (See, e.g., [0005] & [0018]).
The cited prior art, however, fail to teach or render obvious the particular combination of claimed elements, including determining a quantity of candidate routes that originate from each departure airport, identifying candidate routes for a selected particular shipment, selecting a route for the particular shipment which uses an origin airport associated with the highest quantity of candidate routes, and assigning the route to the selected particular shipment.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to for reciting “a remote computer remote,” instead of “a remote computer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 9 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claims 10 – 18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1 – 18 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1 & 10 substantially recite: “receive shipment data associated with the plurality of shipments, wherein the shipment data includes at least an originating postal code and a destination postal code associated with each shipment; identify a plurality of departure airports associated with each originating postal code; identify a plurality of destination airports associated with each destination postal code; develop a first plurality of routes associated with the plurality of shipments, wherein each route is associated with a departure airport and a destination airport; develop a plurality of shipment counts, wherein each shipment count of the plurality of shipment counts is associated with a departure airport of the plurality of airports and indicates a quantity of the plurality routes that are associated with the departure airport; select a shipment from the plurality of shipments; select a plurality of candidate routes from the plurality of routes that may be used for the shipment; select a route of the plurality of candidate routes associated with a departure airport having highest shipment count associated therewith; and assign the selected route to the shipment.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction or while following rules or instructions. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass assigning deliveries to optimal shipping routes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Additionally, the claims also fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because the recited steps as outlined below are analogous to “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims fall under two both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 & 10, as a whole, amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment.
Claim 1 recites the additional generic computer elements of “a computer-based device having one or more processors and a memory having instructions stored therein that cause the one or more processors to.” Claim 10 recites the additional generic computer element of “computer-based.”
The additional elements of “a computer-based device having one or more processors and a memory having instructions stored therein that cause the one or more processors to” and “computer-based” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional generic computer elements of “a computer-based device having one or more processors and a memory having instructions stored therein that cause the one or more processors to” and “computer-based” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 9 & 11 – 18 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The extra-solution functionality of “wherein information regarding the plurality of selected routes is transmitted to a computer remote from the computer-based device” in claim 9 as well as “transmitting information regarding the plurality of selected routes to a remote computer remote” in claim 18 has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting transmitting data over a network), and thus do not amount to significantly more. The additional generic computer element of “computer” in claims 9 & 18 merely invoke the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shoemaker et al. (US 20100274609 A1); Chakraborty et al. (US 20230304806 A1); Reed et al. (US 20160086118 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights