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 .
This final office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 12 December 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16 and 19- 20 have been received and are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Prior Art
The prior art does not disclose: refining, during a second phase, the Harmonized System (HS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction to generate a Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction using a locally specific model, the locally specific model using a zero-shot classification with a dynamic set of classes; and providing a Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction to the user in response to the import/export classification request, the providing having increased Coherence and speed compared to using a full zero-shot classification with a one phase approach.
The closest prior art is Black 11145020. The closest NPL is “Policy coherence and coordination for trade facilitation: Integrated border management, single-windows and other options for developing countries,” FA Alburo - 2008 - econstor.eu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: That the invention addresses “…a specific technological solution to a technical problem in the field of global trade classification by executing a specific two phase architecture (Two-phase ML architecture addressing static vs. dynamic label spaces and orders-of-magnitude class growth), which is an improvement over prior art classification systems that faced an inherent technical limitation: …Independent claim 1 may be considered to be directed to an improved method for providing classification of a plurality of goods being shipped and/or imported/exported using Harmonized System (HS) codes and Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes in order to provide global accuracy and scalable coverage of country specificity by executing a specific two phase architecture. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is at least directed to "[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field"…Paragraph [0031] of the specification explains that prior art classification systems faced an inherent technical limitation: A traditional classification model cannot share information across markets to learn the HS codes while at the same time covering all the unique country-specific HTS codes. This technical constraint created a fundamental dichotomy between achieving global accuracy and providing comprehensive coverage of market-specific classifications. ….” (Applicant’s response, 12-13) Applicant further asserts that the instant claim are directed to an improvement in machine-earning architect similar to the patent eligible claims of Enfish and McRO by reciting a two phase ML architecture that improves prior computing techniques. (Applicant’s response, 33-34) Additionally, Applicant asserts that the instant claims recite ‘meaningful limitations’ and are not routine and conventional use of computers or the Internet. (Applicant’s response, 34) Applicant also argues that the observable results which are “ in less than 39.9 milliseconds” are an improvement to the functioning of the computer. (Applicant’s response, 35-37). Applicant lastly references Desjardins, to reiterate the argument that the specific two phase ML architecture and the improved computer performance gains and the recited hardware are indicative of patent eligible subject matter. (Applicant response 37-40).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s own arguments refer to the problem being solved as “in the field of global trade classification” which is addressed by using a “bespoke model” /a “zero-shot model”/ two phase ML architecture. As previously stated, this is a business problem addressed using models described at a high level of generality in a machine learning environment which is “apply- it” (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As noted previously the recited steps of the invention are directed to aggregating and analyzing data for classification purposes. In the instant application, the data that is being processed/classified is related to tariffs. The improvements in performance referenced by Applicant are an increase in speed/efficiency of an existing process not an improvement to the computing technology; (MPEP 2106.05 (f)(2) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). )
Unlike the patent eligible claims of Enfish, McRo and DDR, the recited invention is at most an improvement to the abstract idea not an improvement to technology. A novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Desjardins, therefore, is unavailing in this instance. Also as previously noted. Examiner further notes that Berkheimer evidence has been provided in the rejection and is cited as: . (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification [47] processors… for processing information and executing instructions or operations… any type of general or specific purpose processor… ) As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method and the system/apparatus of classification of a plurality of goods using Harmonized System (HS) codes and Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes. In the instant case, Claims 1-10 are directed to a process. Claims 11-19 and 20 are directed to a system/apparatus.
(2a) Prong 1: Aggregating and analyzing data for classification of goods/harmonization of is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(Currently Amended) A … implemented method for providing classification of a plurality of goods being shipped and/or imported/exported using Harmonized System (HS) codes and Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes in order to provide global accuracy and scalable coverage of country specificity by executing a specific two phase architecture, comprising:
maintaining a … of import/export classifications for a plurality of goods comprising Harmonized System (HS) codes of the plurality of goods and Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes of the plurality of goods;
… an import/export classification request from a user for an import/export classification of a good of a cross-border commerce transaction;
responding to the import/export classification request by generating a computerized classification result by searching the database of import/export classifications for the plurality of goods using a two phase architecture, the two phase architecture comprising:
during a first phase:
generating a Harmonized System (HS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction using a global classification model, the global classification model using a bespoke model with a static set of classes of approximately five-thousand possible outcome classes that are shared across markets, the global classification model applying a neural network trained on label data from multiple countries to identify a unique six-digit HS code representing a chapter, header, and sub- heading for each of the plurality of goods, the neural network being executed by an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC); and
during a second phase;
refining the Harmonized System (HS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction to generate a Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction using a locally specific model, the locally specific model using a zero-shot classification with a dynamic set of classes,the dynamic set of classes being several orders of magnitude higher than the static set of classes used in the first phase, the zero-shot classification applying natural language processing techniques to analyze textual descriptions of goods without pre-training on every possible class, the locally specific model applying country-specific classification to extend the six-digit HS code to generate an eight-digit HTS code, ten-digit HTS code or twelve-digit HTS code specific to a particular country of import, the locally specific model being adaptable to transition from a general zero-shot model to a market-specific model optimized for a particular country's classification requirements based on market volume and need, the locally specific model being executed by an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC);
providing, in less than 39.9 milliseconds, a Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction to the user in response to the import/export classification request, the Hamonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code having increased coherence of between 60% and 100% and compared to using a full zero-shot classification with a one phase approach, the coherence being a measure of similarity between the generated classification and a classification made by an expert human, and
updating the database based on user feedback regarding the provided HTS code, the user feedback being used to retrain both the global classification model and the locally specific model to improve future classification accuracy.
11. (Currently Amended) An … for providing classification of a plurality of goods being shipped and/or imported/exported using Harmonized System (HS) codes and Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes in order to provide global accuracy and scalable coverage of country specificity by executing a specific two phase architecture, comprising:
at least …; and
at least one … at least to:
maintain a … of import/export classifications for a plurality of goods comprising Harmonized System codes of the plurality of goods and Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes of the plurality of goods;
… an import/export classification request from a user for an import/export classification of a good of a cross-border commerce transaction;
respond to the import/export classification request by generating a computerized classification result by searching the database of import/export classifications for the plurality of goods using a two phase architecture , the two phase architecture comprising:
during a first phase:
generate a Harmonized System (HS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction using a global classification model, the global classification model using a bespoke model with a static set of classes of approximately five-thousand possible outcome classes that are shared across markets, the global classification model applying a neural network trained on label data from multiple countries to identify a unique six-digit code representing a chapter, header, and sub-heading for each of the plurality of goods the neural network being executed by an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC); and
during a second phase;
refine the Harmonized System (HS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction to generate a Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction using a locally specific model, the locally specific model using a Natural Language Understanding model with a dynamic set of classes, the dynamic set of classes being several orders of magnitude higher than the static set of classes used in the first phase, the zero-shot classification applying natural language processing techniques to analyze textual descriptions of goods without pre- training on every possible class, the locally specific model applying country-specific classification to extend the six-digit HS code to generate an eight-digit HTS code, ten-digit HTS code or twelve-digit HTS code specific to a particular country of import, the locally specific model being adaptable to transition from a general zero-shot model to a market-specific model optimized for a particular country's classification requirements based on market volume and need the locally specific model being executed by an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC);
provide in less than 39.9 milliseconds, a Harmonized Tariff Schedule code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction to the user in response to the import/export classification request, the Hamonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code having increased coherence of between 60% and 100% compared to using a full Natural Language Understanding model with a one phase approach, the coherence being a measure of similarity between the generated classification and a classification made by an expert human, and
update the database based on user feedback regarding the provided HTS code, the user feedback being used to retrain both the global classification model and the locally specific model to improve future classification accuracy.
20. (Currently Amended) A … for providing classification of a plurality of goods being shipped and/or imported/exported using Harmonized System (HS) codes and Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes in order to provide global accuracy and scalable coverage of country specificity by executing a specific two phase architecture, comprising:
… to:
maintain … of import/export classifications for a plurality of goods comprising Harmonized System codes of the plurality of goods and Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes of the plurality of goods;
… an import/export classification request from a user for an import/export classification of a good of a cross-border commerce transaction;
respond to the import/export classification request by generating a computerized classification result by searching the database of import/export classifications for the plurality of goods using a two phase architecture,, the two phase architecture, comprising:
during a first phase
generate a Harmonized System (HS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction using a global classification model, the global classification model using a bespoke model with a static set of classes of approximately five-thousand possible outcome classes that are shared across markets, the global classification model applying a neural network trained on label data from multiple countries to identify a unique six-digit code representing a chapter, header, and sub-heading for each of the plurality of goods, the neural network being executed by an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC); and
during a second phase:
refine the Harmonized System (HS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction to generate a Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction using a locally specific model, the locally specific model using a Natural Language Understanding model with a dynamic set of classes, the dynamic set of classes being several orders of magnitude higher than the static set of classes used in the first phase, the zero-shot classification applying natural language processing techniques to analyze textual descriptions of goods without pre- training on every possible class, the locally specific model applying country-specific classification to extend the six-digit HS code to generate an eight-digit HTS code, ten-digit HTS code or twelve-digit HTS code specific to a particular country of import, the locally specific model being adaptable to transition from a general zero-shot model to a market-specific model optimized for a particular country's classification requirements based on market volume and need the locally specific model being executed by an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC);;
provide, in less than 39.9 milliseconds, a Harmonized Tariff Schedule code for the good of the cross-border commerce transaction to the user in response to the import/export classification request, the Hamonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code having increased coherence of between 60% and 100% compared to using a full Natural Language Understanding model with a one phase approach, the coherence being a measure of similarity between the generated classification and a classification made by an expert human, and
update the database based on user feedback regarding the provided HTS code, the user feedback being used to retrain both the global classification model and the locally specific model to improve future classification accuracy.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of maintaining…, generating…., generating… , refining … the .. (HS) code… , providing… updating.. do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. receiving…,)do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-10 are directed to a process. Claims 11-19 and 20 are directed to a system/apparatus.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (computer, apparatus, hardware processors, database) merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification [47] processors… for processing information and executing instructions or operations… any type of general or specific purpose processor… )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claims 2-10 and 12-19 introduces the additional element of wherein clauses further defining elements/ steps such as Harmonized System (HS) code (Claims 2-5; 12-15); maintaining the database (Claims 6-9, 16-19) the user (Claim 10). This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification [47] processors… for processing information and executing instructions or operations… any type of general or specific purpose processor… )
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 0227570 A2- Real-time Global Tariff And Import Data Delivering Method Involves Extracting Specific Categories And Values From Extension, Adding Information To Superset And Combining It With Base Harmonized System Code
US 8751419 B2- Shipping System And Method With Taxonomic Tariff Harmonization
US 20120130927 A1- System For Delivering Harmonized Classification Code For Good Based On E.g. Input, In Electronic-commerce Environment, Has Learning Module Learning Keywords From Input And Associating Key Words With Harmonized Classification Code For Good
US 11443273 B2-Artificial Intelligence For Compliance Simplification In Cross-border Logistics
JP 2003535401 A- Real-time Global Tariff And Import Data Systems And Methods
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691