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 in reply to application 18/578,027 filed 1/10/2024. Claims 1-7 are pending. This action is non-final.
Claim Interpretation
The recited claim terms a login module, an input module, a crawler module, an extractor module, a display module, and an uploading module in claim 1, and a user module, and an admin module in claim 2 are considered to have sufficient structure and do not invoke 35 USC § 112(f) because of their relationship with the recited server. In light of the specification, it would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the modules within the server would have structure consisting of a combination of hardware and software.
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 1-7 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 and 7 recites a system (100) and a method, respectively, for finding a tariff code, comprising: a server (102) implementing a web-based platform having a framework (102a) and a repository (102b), wherein the framework (102a) includes a questionnaire form, a user profile, a company profile, and an enquiry form, wherein the server (102) includes: a user interface (104) configured to receive user inputs from a user application running on a computing device of a user; an admin interface (106) configured to manage and validate a user account and related questionnaire form based on the user inputs, and configured to generate login credentials for the user; a login module (108) configured to enable the user to login into the user account using the login credentials; an input module (110) configured to cooperate with the login module (108) to allow the user to select an enquiry form through an interface of the user account and submit the enquiry form; a crawler and extractor module (112) configured to cooperate with the input module (110) to crawl through a list of questions stored in said repository (102b) and extract the questions from said repository (102b) based on the enquiry form selected by the user; a display module (114) configured to cooperate with the crawler and extractor module (112) and the input module (110) to display at least one response pertaining to each of the extracted questions on the user interface (104);a response analyzer (116) configured to analyze the responses provided by the user for the extracted questions, select a next set of questions from said repository (102b) based on the responses for receiving further responses from the user, or prompt the user to upload a relevant media; an uploading module (118) configured to cooperate with the response analyzer (116) to upload the relevant media, including relevant text, product literature, and a photo of the packaging, of a good for which a Harmonized System (HS) code is to be retrieved from said repository (102b); and an HS code finder (120) configured to cooperate with the uploading module (118) and with said response analyzer (116) to find the HS code with information based on the responses provided by the user and the relevant media uploaded by the user. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a machine and a method, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations ... finding a tariff code, comprising: ... a framework (102a) ... wherein the framework (102a) includes a questionnaire form, a user profile, a company profile, and an enquiry form ... receive user inputs ... manage and validate a user account and related questionnaire form based on the user inputs, and configured to generate ... credentials for the user ... enable the user ... into the user account using the ... credentials ... allow the user to select an enquiry form ... and submit the enquiry form ... crawl through a list of questions stored ... and extract the questions ... based on the enquiry form selected by the user ... display at least one response pertaining to each of the extracted questions ... analyze the responses provided by the user for the extracted questions, select a next set of questions ... based on the responses for receiving further responses from the user, or prompt the user to ... a relevant media ... the relevant media, including relevant text, product literature, and a photo of the packaging, of a good for which a Harmonized System (HS) code is to be retrieved ... and ... find the HS code with information based on the responses provided by the user and the relevant media ... by the user, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 7 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 1 and 7, a system (100), a server (102), a web-based platform, a repository (102b), a user interface (104), a user application, a computing device of a user, an admin interface (106), login credentials, a login module (108), an input module (110), an interface of the user account, a crawler and extractor module (112), a display module (114), a response analyzer (116), upload, an uploading module (118), and an HS code finder (120), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claims 1 and 7, a system (100) (described on spec. pg. 4), a server (102) (described on spec. pg. 12), a web-based platform (described on spec. pg. 12), a repository (102b) (described on spec. pg. 13), a user interface (104) (described on spec. pg. 13), a user application (described on spec. pg. 13), a computing device of a user (described on spec. pg. 13), an admin interface (106) (described on spec. pg. 13), login credentials (described on spec. pg. 13), a login module (108) (described on spec. pg. 13), an input module (110) (described on spec. pg. 13), an interface of the user account (described on spec. pg. 13), a crawler and extractor module (112) (described on spec. pg. 13), a display module (114) (described on spec. pg. 13), a response analyzer (116) (described on spec. pg. 13), upload (described on spec. pg. 13), an uploading module (118) (described on spec. pg. 13), and an HS code finder (120) (described on spec. pg. 13), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-6 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although, claims 2 recites the additional element a user module, an account login control, a report generator, a report viewer, a payment gateway, an admin module, and a biller, and claim 3 recites the additional elements a mobile device, a laptop, a tablet, and a desktop system, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Although claim 2 recites the additional elements a user module (described on spec. pg. 5), an account login control (described on spec. pg. 5), a report generator (described on spec. pg. 5), a report viewer (described on spec. pg. 5), a payment gateway (described on spec. pg. 5), an admin module (described on spec. pg. 5), and a biller (described on spec. pg. 5), and claim 3 recites the additional elements a mobile device (described on spec. pg. 5), a laptop (described on spec. pg. 5), a tablet (described on spec. pg. 5), and a desktop system (described on spec. pg. 5), they are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-7 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. Relevant prior art includes: Campbell (U.S. Pub. No. 20190080279), Bramble (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0046656), Iyer (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0301031), Barlin (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0312470), and Black (U.S. Pat. No. 11,145,020. Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Examiner has determined that no prior art anticipates the instant claims. Also, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine these references to arrive at the claimed invention. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628