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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are cancelled
Claims 21-40 are new
Claims 21-40 are pending in the application.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind. (Applicant’s 7/23/25 remarks, p.15). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Applicant claims recite a considerable number of technical features (e.g., a computing system, data sensors, customer endpoint, GUI corresponding to a multi level data structure, data conversion, communication network, etc, the examiner respectfully suggests that this merely confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment using generic computers. It is unclear in context what a “data sensor” could be, but the examiner also interprets this to be a generic computer. Generally collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). Although a specific GUI is recited, this does not appear to be a technical improvement. The examiner respectfully suggests that hierarchical storage and presentation of data likely predates the computing arts. It is a hallmark of human organization to break down large tasks into smaller more manageable tasks. Formulating a hierarchical breakdown of a project plan or task list (e.g. a checklist) and presenting it is not understood be a technical improvement. A human could perform data conversion tasks. (e.g. if an entity expected metric measurements, a human could convert received English measurements to the metric system).
Applicant’s amendments are addressed by the newly cited art.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. Regarding independent claims 21,39 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea of conducting an inspection which is a mental process. Other than reciting a server, processor, database, sensors, GUI nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the a server, processor, database, sensors,GUI the limitations on monitor incoming data sources of customer endpoints, search and retrieve information , generate shipment vetting information by analyzing retrieved data and sensed data, generate inspection recommendation for customer endpoint, recommendation is based on shipping information and declared attributes, recommendation is hierarchic and based on setting flags and lower sub levels, set inspection recommendation based on predefined criterion, send shipment document information, receive inspection recommendation information, process inspection recommendation, present inspection recommendations, identify shipment and display inspection recommendation
is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to conducting an inspection stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. The examiner considers conducting customs inspections to be a fundamental economic practice. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do 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, the additional element of a server, processor, database, sensors, GUI amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the inspection steps. The subject matter of claims 22/40 (predefined criterion based on count of flagged states), 23 (determine expected goods attributes and sub level recommendations based on comparison on declared and expected goods attributes), 24 (determine entity reliability and sub level recommendations based on reliability), 25 (setting of classification, evaluation and physical attributes flags), 26 (setting of classification flag based on one of a code mismatch or description flag), 27 (setting of evaluation flag based on historical price flag or common price flag), 28 (setting goods attributes flag based on volume flag, weight flag or defective goods flag), 29 (display goods recommendation flag and entity recommendation flag, base on user selection of goods recommendation flag, display supportive information comprising set of classification, evaluation and physical attributes flags), 30 (setting trade classification flag, entity legal flag and entity presence tag), 31 (determine setting of trade classification flag based on predefined criterion), 32 (determine setting of entity legal flag based on predefined criterion), 33 (determine setting of entity presence flag based on predefined criterion), 34 (display goods recommendation and entity recommendation flag and cause display of supportive information based on user selection), 35 (determine third goods based sub levels and set flags), 36 (determine third entity based sub level data and set flags), 37 (enumerated declared goods attributes), 38 (enumerated import inspection recommendations) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627