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 amended
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 7/20/25 remarks, p.21” Specifically, it is respectfully asserted that the human mind is not quipped to
continuously monitor a plurality of incoming data sources corresponding to a plurality of
customer endpoints, to automatically manage a plurality of data sensors to search and retrieve
sensor information from a plurality of databases, to automatically generate shipment vetting
information to be provided to a plurality of customer endpoints, and to provide the GUI to the
user. ”). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner respectfully suggests that a human is capable of monitoring multiple data sources. To the extent that the claims recite “data sensors”, it is not clear that this represents any additional element beyond a generic computer. Similarly, the recitation of a database or endpoints do not appear to be more than generic data storage and networking. (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 the claims recite a GUI, it is not claimed at a sufficient level of detail to describe a technical improvement to a GUI. (Intellectual Ventures I and II v. Capital One, 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), Claim for data mapping in XML documents was abstract because it was directed to the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.) The claim only describes what the GUI displays and not any technical aspect of the GUI.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is a practical application of an abstract idea that transforms shipping data into inspection recommendations. (Applicant’s 7/20/25 remarks, p.22). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims do not appear to go beyond types of data analysis that courts have determined to be patent ineligible. (MPEP 2106, “In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”)
Applicant also argues that the claimed hierarchic arrangement of data and display of the data is a technical solution. (Applicant’s 7/20/25 remarks, p.22). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that hierarchic data recordation and presentation long predates computing. For example, data recorded and presented in a simply outline format with points and subpoints, etc, is a type of data structure that could be implemented by a computer and also manually by humans.
Applicant also argues that the independent claims recite additional elements that are significantly more than a judicial exception. (Applicant’s 7/20/25 remarks, p. 22). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Applicant subsequently pastes that contents of the claims in their entirety, the examiner finds no specific argument as to what elements Applicant considers to be significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1,17 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea of recommending a shipment inspection which is a mental process. Other than reciting a processor, storage, sensors, server, media, GUI nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for processor, storage, sensors, server, media, GUI the limitations on :
…automatically provide shipment vetting information to a plurality of customer endpoints, the server comprising:
…store a plurality of data entities, … provide polymorphism access while querying heterogeneous entities; and
continuously monitor a plurality of incoming data sources corresponding to the plurality of customer endpoints, to automatically retrieve incoming data from the plurality of incoming data sources, to automatically convert the incoming data into formatted data entities, and to automatically write the formatted data entities …;
automatically manage a plurality … to search and retrieve … information from a plurality …
… historical data of past trades and a …professionally curated lists of knowledge to support shipment vetting; and
automatically generate the shipment vetting information to be provided to the plurality of customer endpoints by automatically analyzing shipment information
based on the plurality of data entities … retrieved by the plurality …,
automatically generate the shipment vetting information comprising import inspection recommendation information for a customer endpoint of the plurality of customer endpoints, the import inspection recommendation information for the customer endpoint comprising a plurality of import inspection recommendations corresponding to a plurality of imported shipments for the customer endpoint, wherein an import inspection recommendation corresponding to an imported shipment of the plurality of imported shipments is to indicate whether the imported shipment is to be cleared from an import inspection based on shipment document information corresponding to the imported shipment, the shipment document information corresponding to the imported shipment comprising a plurality of declared attributes for the imported shipment, the plurality of declared attributes comprising one or more declared goods attributes and one or more declared entity attributes, wherein the one or more server processors are configured to cause the server to automatically generate the import inspection recommendation corresponding to the imported shipment configured according to a multi-level data structure comprising a plurality of data sub-levels in a hierarchic arrangement, the plurality of data sub-levels comprising: at least a first goods-based data sub-level and a second goods-based data sub-level above the first goods-based data sub-level in the hierarchic arrangement, wherein the one or more server processors are configured to cause the server to automatically generate the first goods-based data sub-level comprising a plurality of first goods-based sub-level recommendations arranged in a first plurality of goods-based data blocks, the plurality of first goods-based sub-level recommendations comprising a setting of one or more first goods-based sub-level flags based on the one or more declared goods attributes,
…automatically generate the second goods-based data sub-level comprising a plurality of second goods-based sub-level recommendations arranged in a second plurality of goods-based data blocks, the plurality of second goods-based sub-level recommendations is based on the plurality of first goods-based sub-level recommendations, the plurality of second goods- based sub-level recommendations comprising a setting of one or more second goods-based sub-level flags based on the setting of the one or more first goods-based sub-level flags; and at least a first entity-based data sub-level and a second entity-based data sub-level above the first entity-based data sub-level in the hierarchic arrangement,
…automatically generate the first entity-based data sub-level comprising a plurality of first entity-based sub-level recommendations arranged in a first plurality of entity-based data blocks, the plurality of first entity-based sub-level recommendations comprising a setting of one or more first entity-based sub-level flags based on the one or more declared entity attributes,
…automatically generate the second entity-based data sub-level comprising a plurality of second entity-based sub-level recommendations arranged in a second plurality of entity-based data blocks, the plurality of second entity-based sub-level recommendations is based on the plurality of first entity-based sub-level recommendations, the plurality of second entity- based sub-level recommendations comprising a setting of one or more second entity-based sub-level flags based on the setting of the one or more first entity- based sub-level flags; and
… send to a to the server shipment document information corresponding to a-the plurality of imported shipments;
receive the import inspection recommendation information for the customer endpoint …
process the import inspection recommendation information for the customer endpoint to identify, a the plurality of import inspection recommendations corresponding to the plurality of imported shipments,
… present, an imported shipments window to display the plurality of import inspection recommendations corresponding to the plurality of imported shipments arranged in a plurality of shipment recommendation entries, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the endpoint computing device to automatically update a shipment recommendation entry corresponding to the imported shipment to comprise a shipment identifier (ID) to identify the imported shipment, a goods description of goods associated with the imported shipment, and a recommendation indication to indicate whether the imported shipment is to be cleared from the import inspection based on the shipment document information corresponding to the imported shipment, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the endpoint computing device to automatically set the recommendation indication based on the import inspection recommendation corresponding to the imported shipment; identify a selection of the imported shipment based on a first input from the user …, based on identification of the selection of the important shipment, …display to the user … comprising a goods-based recommendation for the imported shipment and an entity-based recommendation for the imported shipment, wherein the goods-based recommendation for the imported shipment is based on the plurality of second goods-based sub-level recommendations, the entity- based recommendation for the imported shipment is based on the plurality of second entity-based sub-level recommendations;
identify a request for supportive information based on a second input received from the user…, based on a determination that the request for supportive information comprises a request for supportive information corresponding to the goods-based recommendation: … display to the user a goods-supportive information window comprising one or more of the second plurality of goods-based data blocks; and based on identification of a request for goods-block supportive information corresponding to a particular goods-based data block based on a third input received from the user …display to the user a goods-block supportive information window corresponding to the particular goods-based data block, the goods-block supportive information window comprising one or more of the first plurality of goods-based data blocks corresponding to the particular goods- based data block; and based on a determination that the request for supportive information comprises a request for supportive information corresponding to the entity-based recommendation: … display to the user an entity-supportive information window comprising one or more of the second plurality of entity-based data blocks; and based on identification of a request for entity-block supportive information corresponding to a particular entity-based data block based on a fourth input received from the user … to display to the user an entity- block supportive information window corresponding to the particular entity-based data block, the entity-block supportive information window comprising one or more of the first plurality of entity-based data blocks corresponding to the particular entity-based data block.
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 recommending a shipment 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. 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 processor, storage, sensors, server, media, 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 recommendation steps. The subject matter of claims 2/18 (compare expected and declared goods attributes), 3/19 (display comparison of expected and declared attributes), 4 (display comparison of expected and declared classification), 5 ( determine sub recommendations based on entity reliability), 6 (display entity reliability), 7 (second goods based sub level flags are set based on third good based sub level flag), 8 (display information requested by user), 9 (third sub entity recommendations based on first entity recommendations and setting of flags), 10 (display data to user based on requests), 11 (declared goods attributes), 12 (exporter attribute), 13 (clear recommendation), 14 (color coding), 15 (BOL information), 16 (declaration) 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
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 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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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