To reduce overhead costs and/or costs to their customers, senders, such as retailers and business enterprises, may look for a shipping carrier that can deliver their packages in the shortest delivery timeframe and for the lowest cost. Web-based shipping systems, such as those provided by iShip, Inc., and locally-run shipping systems, such as the ConnectShip system offered by UPS, display various carriers that are available to ship a package (e.g., depending on the location of the sender and the recipient) and the delivery services (e.g., next day, second day, ground) provided by each carrier. In addition, the systems provide the estimated costs and the expected delivery date for each delivery service.
Another method of reducing shipping costs is to consolidate shipments. For example, FedEx and UPS offer customers the ability to consolidate shipments destined for European Union (EU) countries under one international air waybill, clear customs through one port of entry in one shipment, and be delivered to multiple recipients located in the EU countries. These solutions consolidate shipments based on the destination country of each shipment, but they do not take into consideration other shipping parameters for each shipment when consolidating the shipments.
Accordingly, there is a need in the art for improved systems and methods for consolidating shipments.
Various embodiments of the invention provide systems and methods for identifying two or more compatible packages to consolidate into a pouch in a shipping environment. For example, a system according to one embodiment includes a processor configured for: (1) receiving package details associated with a package to be shipped to an ultimate recipient; (2) retrieving a pouching template from a memory that identifies one or more incompatibility factors for a pouch; (3) comparing the package details with the incompatibility factors identified in the pouching template; and (4) in response to the package details not matching one or more of the incompatibility factors, electronically adding a unique identifier associated with the package to a pouch manifest. In one embodiment, the system displays a message indicating that the package should not be added to the pouch in response to the package details matching at least one of the incompatibility factors.
In various other embodiments, the pouching template may further define questionable compatibility factors, and the system processor may compare package details with the questionable compatibility factors. In response to the package details matching one or more of the questionable compatibility factors and not matching the incompatible factors, the system may add the package identifier to the pouch manifest and flag it for further consideration by the user. For example, in one embodiment, the package identifier may be highlighted in the pouch manifest. As another example, in one embodiment, the system may prompt the user to confirm that the package identifier should be added to the pouch manifest.
According to a further embodiment, the pouching template may also define one or more compatibility factors, and the system processor may compare package details with the one or more compatibility factors. In response to one or more of the package details matching one or more of the compatibility factors and not matching the incompatibility factors, the system may add the package identifier to the pouch manifest.
In other various embodiments, a pouching system for identifying two or more packages to add into a pouch in a shipping environment is provided. The system includes: (1) a compatibility module configured for comparing package details associated with a package to pouch criteria associated with a pouch to determine whether the package is incompatible with the pouch and (2) an item addition module configured for electronically adding a package identifier identifying the package to a pouch manifest associated with the pouch in response to the package details not matching any of the criteria.
According to another embodiment, a method of adding two or more packages to a pouch in a shipping environment is provided. The method includes the steps of: (1) displaying to an original sender a list of carriers and one or more delivery services available for each carrier for shipping a package, the list of carriers including a generic carrier representing a preference to ship the package in a pouch; (2) receiving a selection of the generic carrier to ship the package; (3) in response to receiving the selection of the generic carrier, comparing package details associated with the package with one or more incompatibility factors associated with the pouch; and (4) in response to the package details not matching any of the one or more incompatibility factors, adding a package identifier associated with the package to a pouch manifest associated with the pouch.
According to another embodiment, a system is provided for identifying one or more carriers and delivery service options for delivering a package in a shipping environment. The system includes a processor configured for: (1) receiving at least a portion of package details associated with a package to be shipped to an ultimate recipient; (2) retrieving a pouching template from a memory that identifies one or more incompatibility factors for a pouch; (3) comparing the package details received with the incompatibility factors identified in the pouching template; (4) in response to the package details not matching one or more of the incompatibility factors, displaying a first list of carriers and delivery service options selectable by a user for shipping the package, wherein the first list includes an option to ship the package in a pouch; and (5) in response to the package details matching one or more of the incompatibility factors, displaying a second list of carriers and delivery service options selectable by the user for shipping the package, wherein the second list does not include an option to ship the package in a pouch.
Having thus described the invention in general terms, reference will now be made to the accompanying drawings, which are not necessarily drawn to scale, and wherein:
Various embodiments of the present invention now will be described more fully with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which some, but not all embodiments of the invention are shown. Indeed, various embodiments of the invention may be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Like numbers refer to like elements throughout.
As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, various embodiments of the present invention may be embodied as a method, a data processing system, or a computer program product. Accordingly, various embodiments of the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, various embodiments of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product on a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions (e.g., computer software) embodied in the storage medium. More particularly, various embodiments of the present invention may take the form of web-implemented computer software. Any suitable computer-readable storage medium may be utilized including hard disks, CD-ROMs, optical storage devices, or magnetic storage devices.
Various embodiments of the present invention are described below with reference to block diagrams and flowchart illustrations of methods, apparatuses (i.e., systems) and computer program products. It will be understood that each block of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, respectively, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus create a means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks.
These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture including computer-readable instructions for implementing the function specified in the flowchart block or blocks. The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable apparatus to produce a computer-implemented process such that the instructions that execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide steps for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks. Accordingly, blocks of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations support combinations for performing the specified functions, combinations of steps for performing the specified functions, and program instructions for performing the specified functions. It will also be understood that each block of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based computer systems that perform the specified functions or steps, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.
System Architecture
An aggregation system 5 in a shipping environment according to one embodiment is shown in
In addition, the aggregation server 200 includes at least one storage device 63, such as a hard disk drive, a floppy disk drive, a CD Rom drive, or optical disk drive, for storing information on various computer-readable media, such as a hard disk, a removable magnetic disk, or a CD-ROM disk. As will be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art, each of these storage devices 63 is connected to the system bus 61 by an appropriate interface. The storage devices 63 and their associated computer-readable media provide nonvolatile storage for a personal computer. It is important to note that the computer-readable media described above could be replaced by any other type of computer-readable media known in the art. Such media include, for example, magnetic cassettes, flash memory cards, digital video disks, and Bernoulli cartridges.
A number of program modules may be stored by the various storage devices and within RAM 67. Such program modules include an operating system 80, a compatibility module 300, an item addition module 400, and a rate modification module 500. The compatibility module 300, the item addition module 400, and the rate modification module 500 control certain aspects of the operation of the aggregation server 200, as is described in more detail below, with the assistance of the processor 60 and an operating system 80.
Also located within the aggregation server 200 is a network interface 74, for interfacing and communicating with other elements of a computer network. It will be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art that one or more of the aggregation server 200 components may be located geographically remotely from other aggregation server 200 components. Furthermore, one or more of the components may be combined, and additional components performing functions described herein may be included in the aggregation server 200.
Brief Overview of Exemplary System Flow
Various embodiments of the present invention provide systems and methods for processing a package and evaluating whether the package is compatible with a pouch. In addition, various embodiments of the invention provide for the display of an option to include a package in a pouch and the corresponding delivery services and costs available along with a list of available carriers and the delivery services and costs available for each carrier.
According to various embodiments, the term “pouch” refers to a fully enclosed container that can contain other packages of various types (e.g., boxes, letter envelopes, bags, etc.). In addition, the pouch can be any soft or hard sided packaging appropriate for the types of packages to be included in the pouch and/or available for a carrier.
For example,
Next, at Step 103, a pre-processing label is printed, and the original sender affixes the label to the package. The label includes thereon a unique package identifier that identifies the package, and the package details associated with the package are stored in a memory with the package identifier. The package is then forwarded to a sender, such as mailroom personnel or counter personnel at a shipping store, to complete the processing of the package, which is shown in Step 105.
In Step 107, the sender receives the package and enters the package identifier into a second client application, such as the web-based Professional Shipping Station (PSS) application or Counter Manifest System (CMS) application provided by iShip, Inc. (see www.iship.com), via a computing device, and the package identifier is transmitted to an aggregation application. The package identifier may be entered, for example, by scanning the label or manually entering the package identifier printed on the label. In response to receiving the package identifier, the one or more package details associated with the package are compared to one or more incompatibility factors stored in a pouching template by an aggregation application, which is shown in Step 109. The incompatibility factors identify criteria about a package that would make it incompatible for including in a pouch. For example, a package may be incompatible with a pouch if one or more address fields are missing, the billing option selected is not a pre-paid option, hold for pickup service option is selected, or a return receipt is requested. If the package details do not meet any of the incompatibility factors, the package is considered to be compatible, and the package identifier is electronically added to a manifest for the pouch, as shown in Step 111. However, if the package details meet one or more of the incompatibility factors, the package identifier is not added to the manifest and an error message is displayed for the sender, as shown in Step 112. In addition, in a particular embodiment (not shown in
Although the first and second client applications and the aggregation application are described above as being separate from each other, in various other embodiments, two or more applications may be combined into one application. In addition, although the first and second client applications are described above as being web-based, the applications may be executed locally on the computing device of each user according to various other embodiments.
The pouching template may further identify questionable compatibility factors, which are details about a package that may be compatible with a pouch but may warrant further consideration by the sender. For example, a package may be compatible with a pouch, but the sender may not want to include the package in the pouch if the delivery date and time selected for the package is prior to the delivery date and time of the pouch, the shipping date and time selected for the package is prior to the shipping date and time of the pouch, the zip+4 code for the package does not match the zip+4 code of the pouch, or certain service options are selected for the package (e.g., signature requirement upon delivery, no signature required upon delivery, or proof of delivery). Accordingly, as shown in Step 113, the package details may be compared with questionable compatibility factors. In response to the package details matching one or more questionable compatibility factors and not meeting any of the incompatibility factors, the package identifier is flagged for additional consideration by the sender, which is shown as Step 115. In one embodiment, the package identifier is electronically added to the pouch manifest, but the identifier is highlighted for the sender (e.g., change font size or color, include color around the font). In another embodiment, a dialog box is displayed alerting the sender about the one or more package details that are questionable and requesting that the sender confirm whether the package identifier should be included in the pouch manifest.
In a further embodiment, the pouching template may also identify compatibility factors, which are details about a package that are compatible with a pouch. For example, a package may be compatible if the original sender selected to receive a delivery notification by email. Accordingly, as shown in Step 117, the package details may be compared with one or more compatibility factors.
Detailed Description of Exemplary System Flow
As discussed above in relation to
Compatibility Module
At Step 306, the compatibility module 300 compares one or more of the package details with the one or more incompatibility factors defined in the pouching template. Incompatibility factors identify characteristics about a package that would be incompatible with the pouch. For example, a package may be incompatible with a pouch if one or more address fields are missing, the billing option selected is not a pre-paid option, hold for pickup service option is selected, or a return receipt option is requested. In addition, in various embodiments, the incompatibility factors in the pouching template may be set according to the business rules of the carriers available to or used by the sender and/or the business rules of the sender. For example, the incompatibility factors set up for a company that uses UPS and DHL as carriers may be different from the incompatibility factors set up for another company that uses FedEx and USPS as carriers. Furthermore, according to various embodiments, the incompatibility factors may be changed to reflect changes in the carrier's or the sender's business rules.
If any of the package details for the package match one or more of the incompatibility factors, then the compatibility module 300 generates and displays an error message indicating that the package is incompatible with the pouch, as shown in Step 310. If the package details for the package do not match any of the incompatibility factors, the compatibility module 300 proceeds to Step 311 and determines if the pouch manifest includes the maximum number of packages set for the pouch. If the maximum number of packages has been included in the pouch, the compatibility module 300 proceeds to Step 310. In other various embodiments (not shown), the compatibility module 300 determines if the pouch would exceed a set size and/or weight if the package is included in the pouch, and if so, the compatibility module 300 proceeds to Step 310.
If the maximum number of packages has not been included in the pouch manifest (or the maximum pouch size and/or weight would not be exceed if the package is included in the pouch), the compatibility module 300 compares one or more of the package details to one or more questionable compatibility factors, which is shown as Step 312. For example, a package may be compatible with a pouch, but the sender may not want to include the package in the pouch if the delivery date and time selected for the package is prior to the delivery date and time of the pouch, the shipping date and time selected for the package is prior to the shipping date and time of the pouch, the zip+4 code for the package does not match the zip+4 code of the pouch, or certain service options are selected for the package (e.g., signature requirement upon delivery, no signature required upon delivery, or proof of delivery). If one or more of the package details matches one or more of the questionable compatibility factors, the compatibility module 300 associates a flag with the package identifier and sends the package identifier and the flag to the item addition module 400, which is shown in Step 313. According to various embodiments, the flag may be a value indicating which package detail(s) match one of the questionable compatibility factors.
As noted above with respect to the incompatibility factors, the questionable compatibility factors may be set according to the business rules of the carriers available to or used by the sender and/or the business rules of the sender, and the questionable compatibility factors may be changed to reflect changes in the carrier's or the sender's business rules.
In one embodiment, if the package details do not match any of the questionable compatibility factors or the incompatibility factors, the compatibility module 300 compares the package details to one or more compatibility factors, shown as Step 314, and transmits the package identifier to the item addition module 400, shown as Step 316. Compatibility factors may be associated with the pouch to promote certain flags or attributes from the package level to the pouch level. For example, the pouch template may include “delivery notification by email” as a compatibility factor, and any packages for which delivery notification by email has been selected will be considered compatible with the pouch. When the pouch is delivered, an email will be sent to the email addresses specified for receiving delivery notification. In another example, the pouch template may specify a particular “signature required” level (e.g., no signature required, a signature required, or adult signature required) as a compatibility factor, and any packages having the particular signature required level will be considered compatible with the pouch. When the pouch is delivered, the requisite signature level will be requested of the person receiving the delivery. In yet another example, the pouch template may include a particular zip code (or zip+4 code) as a compatibility factor, and any packages intended for delivery in the particular zip code (or zip+4 code) will be considered compatible with the pouch. Accordingly, specifying compatibility factors for the pouch advances preferences and delivery instructions associated with the packages to the pouch level so the preferences and delivery instructions can be executed at the pouch level (e.g., sending delivery notifications when the pouch is delivered, obtaining a signature upon delivery of the pouch).
Furthermore, as noted above with respect to the incompatibility factors and questionable compatibility factors, the compatibility factors may be set according to the business rules of the carriers available to or used by the sender and/or the business rules of the sender, and the compatibility factors may be changed to reflect changes in the carrier's or the sender's business rules.
Although Step 314 is shown as being executed after Steps 306, 311, and 312, Step 314 may be executed substantially simultaneously with or prior to Steps 306, 311, and/or 312, according to various other embodiments. In addition, Step 312 may be executed substantially simultaneously with or prior to Steps 306 and/or 311, according to various other embodiments. Similarly, Step 311 may be executed substantially simultaneously with or prior to Step 306.
Item Addition Module
In various other embodiments (not shown), if the package identifier is associated with a flag, the item addition module 400 may display a dialog box for the user to confirm whether the package identifier should be added to the pouch manifest. If the item addition module 400 receives confirmation from the user that the package identifier should be added to the pouch manifest, the item addition module 400 adds the package identifier to the pouch manifest.
Rate Determination Module
Furthermore, in one embodiment in which two or more of the packages have different ultimate recipients located remotely from each other, the shipping rate for each package may include the cost of shipping the package to a first location at which the package is removed from the pouch and the cost of shipping the package to the ultimate recipient from the first location.
Exemplary System Operation
In various embodiments, an original sender accesses a pre-processing application via the Internet using the original sender's desktop computer or other personal computing device located at the original sender's place of business or home. In an alternative embodiment, the original sender may access the pre-processing application using a kiosk or other public computing device located at a shipping store (e.g., UPS Store, FedEx Kinko's, U.S. Post Office).
As mentioned above, to pre-process a package, the original sender may access a first client application, such as the web-based Desktop Shipping Station application or the Customer Entry Station application provided by iShip, Inc., via a computing device and select package details for the package. Exemplary package details include the type of package (e.g., letter, small box, large box, etc.), the ultimate recipient's address, a preferred delivery date and time, a preferred shipping date and time, a preferred carrier or list of carriers (e.g., UPS, FedEx, DHL, USPS), one or more service options (e.g., signature requirements upon delivery, proof of delivery, declared value of package, hold for pickup, return receipt, etc.), and one or more billing options (e.g., pre-paid, cash-on-delivery (COD), etc.). After the package details have been selected, a pre-processing label is printed, and the original sender affixes the label to the package. The label includes thereon a unique package identifier that identifies the package, and the package details associated with the package are stored in a memory with the package identifier.
In response to the original sender selecting a service provided by the generic carrier, which indicates the original sender wants the package included in a pouch and delivered by the estimated delivery time associated with the selected service, a pre-processing label is printed, and the label is affixed to the package. An exemplary pre-processing label 800 is shown in
The package is then forwarded to a sender to complete the processing of the package. According to various embodiments, the sender may be mailroom personnel located at the original sender's place of business or personnel at a public shipping store (e.g., UPS Store, FedEx Kinko's, or U.S. Post Office). The sender receives the package and enters the package identifier into a second client application, such as the web-based Professional Shipping Station application or the Counter Manifest System provided by iShip, Inc., via a computing device, and the package identifier is transmitted over the Internet to the aggregation server 200. The package identifier may be entered, for example, by scanning the label or manually entering the package identifier printed on the label.
As discussed above in relation to
If the package details for the package do not match any of the incompatibility factors defined in the pouching template, the compatibility module 300 compares the package details to the questionable compatibility factors stored in the pouching template. If the package details match any of the questionable compatibility factors, the compatibility module 300 may display the package details of the package in the enter item dialog box 900 and highlight the package detail(s) meeting the questionable compatibility factor to allow the sender to confirm inclusion of the package identifier in the pouch manifest.
The selection of the “Add Another” button 1305 allows the sender to enter a new package identifier into the enter item dialog box 900, and the selection of the “Done” button 1303 prompts the item addition module 400 to display the package identifiers included in the pouch manifest. For example,
According to a particular embodiment, when the sender is ready to prepare the pouch for sending to a recipient, the sender utilizes a process pouch dialog box such as the process pouch dialog box 1500 shown in
The process pouch dialog box 1500 further includes a shipping rate estimate box 1504 that displays the estimated shipping rate for the pouch. If the shipping rates are prorated, the shipping rate determined by the rate modification module 500 is displayed in the box 1504.
In various alternative embodiments, the pre-processing application and the pouching application may be executed locally on computing devices.
Alternative Exemplary System Operation
Many modifications and other embodiments of the invention will come to mind to one skilled in the art to which this invention pertains having the benefit of the teachings presented in the foregoing descriptions and the associated drawings. For example, while various examples are described above in regard to the payoff of a vehicle loan or lease, the system may be configured to facilitate other types of transactions, such as the payoff of other types of loans or financial obligations. Accordingly, it is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed and that modifications and other embodiments are intended to be included within the scope of the invention. Although specific terms are employed herein, they are used in a generic and descriptive sense only and not for the purposes of limitation.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4128204 | Wade | Dec 1978 | A |
5694551 | Doyle et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5712789 | Radican | Jan 1998 | A |
5758329 | Wojcik et al. | May 1998 | A |
6061607 | Bradley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078900 | Ettl et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6148291 | Radican | Nov 2000 | A |
6167378 | Webber, Jr. | Dec 2000 | A |
6249774 | Roden et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6289260 | Bradley et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6418416 | Rosenberg et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6448886 | Garber et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6529797 | Williams et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6536659 | Hauser et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6648153 | Holmes | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6721762 | Levine et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6722506 | Nielsen et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6974928 | Bloom | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7272571 | Tuttrup et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7355505 | Bonner et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
20010027471 | Paulose et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010034673 | Yang et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020010661 | Waddington et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016715 | Razumov | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020019759 | Arunapuram et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020042735 | Narahara et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020059121 | Schneider et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020070846 | Bastian et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020082954 | Dunston | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099631 | Vanker et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020107744 | Rosenberg et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107820 | Huxter | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020124389 | Matson | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020128957 | Rosenberg et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133415 | Zarovinsky | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020152128 | Walch et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020175606 | Holmes | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178074 | Bloom | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030037009 | Tobin et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030083964 | Horwitz et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030171948 | Thomas et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030212602 | Schaller | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040107110 | Gottlieb et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128204 | Cihla et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153379 | Joyce et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040243353 | Aghassipour | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050149373 | Amling et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050154685 | Mundy et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20060173700 | Fenelon | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060224426 | Goossens et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060253339 | Singh et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070244677 | Malitski et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 0118712 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 0207021 | Jan 2002 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090254445 A1 | Oct 2009 | US |