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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 8, the applicant refers to “via the predefined system processor” for the retrieving step. The scope of claim 8 and claim 1 does not include a previous recitation to a predefined system processor so it is not clear what this is referring to. Claim 1 recites a system processor but not a predefined system processor so it is not clear if these elements are the same or not. One wishing to avoid infringement would not know if the predefined system processor was the same as the system processor or if one had to also have a predefined system processor to infringe the claim. This renders the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method (claim 1) and a non-transient CRM (claim 20), and are found to pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of categorizing a product that is being transported across an international border for regulatory purposes and generating a data record indicative of the product and the categorization, which is something that is satisfying a legal obligation in view of the trade or regulations of a given country and defines a certain method of organizing human activities.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving tracking data with a request to move a physical product across an international border of a country, the country having a tariff, trade or SESG statute or regulation including regulatory product categorizations;
generating responsive to receiving the tracking data, a data record corresponding to the physical product, the data record containing a record identifier and summary data representative of one or more attributes of the physical product;
determining, using the regulatory product categorizations in the trade statute or regulation, a regulatory categorization for the physical product based on the summary data and/or product data for the physical product retrieved from a data repository;
determining a confidence value for the regulatory categorization, the confidence value indicating a likelihood that the regulatory categorization for the physical product is a most optimal categorization according to a predefined categorization criteria;
appending, responsive to the confidence value exceeding a predefined threshold confidence, the data record with determined regulatory categorization; and
generating the data record and the confidence value
enabling a user to retrieve and manipulate the data record
The above process is considered to be a legal obligation/interaction type of abstract idea that falls into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities. The categorization of products in trade situations where good/products are crossing international borders is something that is regulated by various countries through laws and regulations, including those that relate to tariffs and attestations that need to be made regarding the category of given product being transported. As is stated in paragraph 008 of the specification, CBP regulations require that documentation be maintained by importers regarding the value and classification of imported products. Product categorization is part of this process where products are given classifications that are used in the importation process and for determining tariffs and fees. The claimed concept falls into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities for this reason because it is reciting the satisfying of a legal obligation (a legal interaction type of abstract idea).
For claim 1, the additional elements are the “via the system processor” limitations, a remote computing node (the source that the system processor receives the tracking data from), calling the data record “electronic”, and the generation of an interactive GUI.
For claim 20, the additional elements are the recited non-transient computer readable medium storing instructions that cause a processor to execute the claimed abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim amount to the use of a system processor and a GUI that allow for interaction with a user and remote computer nodes (computers), that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited system processor to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. Calling the data record an electronic data record is an instruction for one to use computers where information is in a digital form as opposed to using paper forms and paper recordkeeping. Receiving tracking data, creating a data record, determining a regulatory product categorization, determining a confidence value, appending the data record with the determined categorization, and providing the information to a user are all functions/steps that can be performed by people manually, as was done prior to the invention of modern day computers that are now ubiquitous in our daily lives. The elements that define the abstract idea are simply being implemented by the claimed system processor, which does not amount to more than a recitation to “apply it” (the abstract idea) with generic computing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements amount to an instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) and is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by use of a system processor and a GUI that allow for interaction with a user, that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited system processor to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. Calling the data record an electronic data record is an instruction for one to use computers where information is in a digital form as opposed to using paper forms and paper recordkeeping. Receiving tracking data, creating a data record, determining a regulatory product categorization, determining a confidence value, appending the data record with the determined categorization, and providing the information to a user are all functions/steps that can be performed by people manually as was stated for the 2nd prong. These elements that define the abstract idea are simply being implemented by the claimed system processor, which does not amount to more than a recitation to “apply it” (the abstract idea) with generic computing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For this reason the claims are not found to be reciting significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 and 20 are not eligible.
For claim 2, the production of a product rendering and the retrieval and display of the underlying source document are elements that serve to further define the abstract idea. The product rendering is just a rendering of a product such as an image and the retrieval and display of information is providing information to a user. These elements are considered to be part of the abstract idea. The recitation to the interactive GUI and having a pointer or hyperlink is an additional element that has been considered to be an instruction for one to use an interface to provide the user with the ability to provide input to view data. Computers operate by providing users with the ability to click on something to be provided with further information or so that they can be taken to a new page of information. This is how computers work and is not something that amounts to more than an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 3, the claimed producing of look up tables and the conversion of a global trade number or UPC into the record identifier such that the data record is retrieved and displayed are elements that serve to further define the abstract idea. Allowing a user to select a GTIN or UPC as is broadly claimed is something a person can do and is part of the abstract idea. The use of the GUI has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1 and does not provide for integration or significantly more for the same reasons. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 4, the claimed mapping the data record from a first format to a second format as is broadly claimed is part of the abstract idea. The replicating step is claiming the duplication of the data record and storing it in a repository. This is also part of the abstract idea. Two copies of a file folder can be maintained in two different locations, and the fact that the data record is electronic, and the use of the GUI is taken as an instruction for one to use a computer and does not render the claim as being eligible, see MP P2106.05(f), as was addressed for claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 5, determining if sufficient information exists to determine a product categorization using a decision tree algorithm, and generating the product specific information to narrow categorization to provide sufficient information to determine regulatory categorization are claim elements that are part of the abstract idea. A person can perform what is claimed as far as determining if sufficient information exists and generating product specific information as claimed to thereby provide sufficient information. The claimed use of the system processor and using a supervised or unsupervised machine learning algorithm are additional elements. The use of the system processor and supervised or unsupervised machine learning is a link to a particular technological environment that is the field of machine learning. The machine learning is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to more than an instruction for one to use a computer and machine learning (supervised or unsupervised) as a tool to accomplish the steps that define the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 16, the recitation to the use of blockchain with a record location, hash function, and public key is an additional element that has been treated as being a link to a particular technological environment that is the use of blockchain technology to store data in an immutable registry. The use of blockchain is reciting what blockchain is used for and the claimed record location, hash value, and public key are inherent aspects to the use of blockchain. Instructing one to use blockchain technology to store data is a link to a particular technological environment that does not amount to integration into a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f), and (h). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7, 19, the claimed appending of the data record with the claimed data are claim elements directed to aspects of the abstract idea and are not introducing any additional elements beyond those already addressed for claim 1, to which applicant is referred. A person can provide an indication of the product components and can append the data record to include pointers that identify a record identifier for each of the components (location for the product data). The additional elements of the claim are the recitation to “electronic” for the data record and for the pointers, which is taken to be a further instruction for one to practice the abstract idea by using computers, as was addressed for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 8, accessing categorization criteria from a database, retrieving the categorization criteria for determining of the confidence value are claim elements that are reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 1. These elements simply define more about the same abstract idea of claim 1 in terms of accessing data that is used to determine the confidence value that is itself part of the abstract idea. The system processor is taken as a general link to computer implementation of the abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)), and does not provide for integration or significantly more, for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 that recites the system processor. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 9, further defining the regulatory categories is claiming more about the abstract idea and does not recite any additional elements for consideration. What the regulatory categories are called or what the categories represent, such as country or origin or a tariff classification, are elements that are part of the abstract idea. No further additional element is claimed for consideration other than the claimed types of regulatory categories. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 10, the abstract idea is being further defined by the language of:
determining a first preliminary regulatory categorization for the physical product according to a first regulatory categorization criteria stored within a categorization criteria database;
transmitting the summary data, the EDR, and/or the product data to a third-party; and
receiving from the third-party, a second preliminary regulatory categorization for the physical product;
wherein determining the regulatory categorization for the physical product is based on the first and second preliminary regulatory categorizations
The above is reciting more about how the product categorization is being determined for a given product, which is considered to also be part of the abstract idea. People can perform the recited steps by looking up data and mentally making the claimed preliminary categorization and a resulting regulatory categorization that is based on first and second categorizations. This is defining more about the abstract idea that is recited in the claims. The recitation to the system processor of claim 1, reciting electronic for the transmitting step, the use of supervised machine learning, and a third party computing node, are elements that are instructing one to practice the abstract idea using connected computers and machine learning. The machine learning is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to more than an instruction for one to use a computer and machine learning (supervised) as a tool to accomplish the steps that define the abstract idea. The fact that the data is sent electronically, the recitation to the computing node, and the high level recitation to the use of supervised machine learning has been interpreted as being a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f), (h)) and does not provide for integration or significantly more. The claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 11, the generating of multiple requests based on learned types of information required for the product based on related types of information is a further embellishment of the same abstract idea of claim 1. People can do this step manually which is simply requesting information more than one time. The recitation to the use of supervised machine learning has been treated in the same manner that was addressed for claim 10, to which the applicant is referred. The high level recitation to the use of supervised machine learning has been interpreted as being a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f), (h)) and does not provide for integration or significantly more. The claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 12, the abstract idea is being further defined by the recitation to consolidating the first and second categorizations together to increase the confidence value determination. This is reciting more about the abstract idea in terms of how the categorization for the product is being determined. The recitation to the use of supervised machine learning has been treated in the same manner that was addressed for claim 10, to which the applicant is referred. The high level recitation to the use of supervised machine learning has been interpreted as being a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f), (h)) and does not provide for integration or significantly more. The claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 13, the claimed manner of determining the confidence value is part of the abstract idea, including the recitation to it being performed by analyzing similarity between the first and second categorizations. This is defining more about the abstract idea. This is looking at categories to find the most appropriate category to classify a product into. This is part of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 14, the recitation to appending a signature that belongs to the user who approves the categorization and/or one of the third party is simply claiming more about the abstract idea that has been recited in claim 1. Claiming that the signature is a digital signature is another link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 15, the claimed weighing using a decision tree, according to a product expertise metric or categorization expertise metric, is reciting more about the abstract idea. Determining the confidence value, including by the claimed manner, is part of the abstract idea. The system processor has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1, to which the applicant is referred. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 17, 18, further defining the summary data is further defining the abstract idea, as well as further defining the data that is the attribute data (product color, product size, product weight, etc.). The ability to adjust the number of type of attribute is also something that is considered to be part of the abstract idea. The processor has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 18, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bramble et al. (20170046656)
For claims 1, 9, 18, 20, Bramble discloses a system and method for receiving information about items (items are the same as the claimed products) being imported or exported across different jurisdictions/borders (movement of items/products across international borders, see paragraph 002) and determining an item classification for the items for regulatory and/or tariff purposes. The reference to “items” (terminology used by Bramble) by the examiner is to be taken as a reference to the claimed product. The items of Bramble satisfy the claimed product(s). See paragraphs 002, 005, 006, 025, in general for disclosure to classifying items using codes, for the purpose of complying with different countries tariffs and regulations, etc.. for the shipment of items. The classification of the items in Bramble is being done in view of tariffs or a trade statute, or regulations, as is claimed. Bramble teaches that for shipments across borders, it is known to have a document that represents the items being shipped and that contains a categorization for the item. See paragraph 006 where disclosure to a customs Declaration is made that sets forth information about items being shipped and that includes the classification for an item.
The claimed receiving of tracking data (the word tracking is non-functional descriptive material and does not define any particular data that is being received) with a request to move a product across a border is satisfied by Bramble teaching that the classification of an item is performed in response to the receipt of a communication, such as an order or invoice that is reflective of items that a customer wants to have shipped, see paragraphs 027, 037, 050, 054, 074 as examples. This satisfies the claimed request to move a product across an international border. Paragraphs 037, 050, 054, disclose that upon receipt of a communication from a user/customer, such as an invoice or an order that is for an item shipment, the system creates or updates an item record that sets forth information about the item that is stored in an item database 140. In paragraph 063 it is disclosed that when a code is assigned to an item (the regulatory categorization of the claims), the information is stored in the item database 140. The item records of Bramble stored in the item database satisfy the claimed electronic data record that includes summary data representative of attributes for the item. In paragraph 076 it is disclosed that an item record may be updated or can be newly created. Having a newly created item record that contains information about an item to be shipped satisfies the claimed electronic data record that is being generated in response to the request to ship the item. The item record is disclosed as including information about the item such as an item description, item value, UPC, etc. This satisfies the claimed “summary data that is representative of the one or more attributes for the physical product”. For the claimed record identifier, paragraph 027 of Bramble discloses that a unique item/product information is given to a product shipment. This satisfies the limitation reciting data record as including a record identifier. Bramble discloses data that is an item/shipment ID and that relates to the data record.
Bramble discloses that machine learning is used to determine a product categorization based on the summary data (the data about the item), or based on product data (also is claiming data about the item being shipped). See paragraphs 053, 060, 069. This satisfies the claimed determining of the regulatory categorization for the item/product. Disclosed is that the item information and other information contained in the data record (the item record) is used to determine the category that is most appropriate for the item. This satisfies the claimed use of the summary data for determining the categorization for the product.
The system of Bramble determines the claimed confidence value for the determined regulatory categorization (the classification of Bramble) based on a threshold. Disclosed is that a threshold is used such that when a threshold for a given classification (category) is satisfied, then the item is given the determined classification. See paragraphs 053-054, 065. Paragraph 053 discloses that a confidence level for the determined item classification is being determined and that a threshold is used as is claimed. If a confidence level for a given classification is found to be greater than a predetermined confidence threshold, the items is accorded the determined classification and the data record is appended to reflect the item classification and the confidence level. Also see paragraphs 060, 069 that disclosed the confidence level and the threshold similar to that of paragraph 053. Disclosed is that the data record for the item is updated (appended) with the resulting item classification (categorization) along with the resulting confidence level, see paragraph 063. This satisfies the claimed appending step.
Bramble teaches that the user is provided with an interactive GUI that displays the data record (the item file and associated information) to the user, which includes the resulting classification for the item and the resulting confidence level, see paragraph 070, 080. This satisfies the providing of the interactive GUI with the data record (the item file) and the confidence value. The use is able to view the data record for the item that includes information about the item, the categorization for the item/product, and the confidence level for the determined categorization. A user can view the information via a user dashboard as is disclosed in paragraph 080. The claimed manipulation of the data record is satisfied by a user being able to view the data record using the disclosed dashboard and making edits if desired. A user is able to retrieve the data record for an item and upon viewing the information, is enabled to manipulate the data record as claimed. A user can edit the classification for the item if they feel that it is incorrect, see paragraph 070 where this is disclosed as occurring via a user GUI. Also see figure 7. 9This satisfies the claimed ability of the user to manipulate the electronic data record via the interactive GUI.
For claim 3, Bramble is considered to satisfy what is claimed. In Bramble, the item record is defined by a unique identifier that allows a user to track the item shipment and so that a user can retrieve the item record that is for the shipment/item. A number is a number so what you call the number does not define anything further to the use of a number for retrieving the data record (EDR).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bramble et al. (20170046656) in view of Floersch (20210192545).
For claims 6, 16, not disclosed is that the EDR is written to a blockchain record that includes a location, a hash function, and a public key. The examiner notes that blockchain technology inherently involves the use of data of location, a hash, and a public key. These elements are foundational to and inherently part of what blockchain is by definition.
Floersch teaches a system and method for automated trade management where a system is used to create and store information such as declarations for products being shipped using blockchain. Disclosed in paragraph 022 is that information that can be stored to the blockchain includes trade data such as customs information or declarations such as those required by regulatory agencies. This is analogous to Bramble as far as both references are dealing with trade and custom’s declarations for items being shipped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bramble with the ability to store the data record using blockchain technology, so that the advantages that blockchain storage provides can be realized in the system and method of Bramble.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 17, 18, 20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2-4, 6, 12, 14-16, 18-20, 21, 23, of U.S. Patent No. 12248943. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the below reasons.
For claims 1, 19, 20, all of the recited elements of the claim are found in patented claim 1. Both claims recite the receipt of a request to move a product across a border, generate the claimed EDR, determine a regulatory categorization, determine a confidence value, append the EDR as claimed, and providing an interactive GUI to the user as claimed. The claimed limitations of the patented claims are slightly narrower than what has been claimed in the pending claims but still satisfy what is claimed. The pending claims are broader in some respects but the pending claimed elements are still anticipated by claim 1 because they are disclosed by patented claim 1.
Not disclosed by patented claim 1 is that the confidence value is determined by comparison to a threshold as claimed and/or that the invention is a method (claim 1) as opposed to a system. Bramble teaches a system and method for determining the proper category for products being shipped, and teaches the use of a threshold that the confidence value is being compared to. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the patented claims with the further ability to use a threshold that the confidence level is compared to, such that if the threshold is exceeded the determined category will be given to the product. This yields predictable results of allowing the system to be tailored to a predetermined confidence level that must be obtained for the system to decide on a product categorization to be given to a product. With respect to claiming a method instead of a system (as the patented claims recite), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the system of the patented claims to do what the system is configured to do, so that the invention can be realized in the real world. Claiming a method that is using the system to do what the system is recited as being able to do, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For claim 2, see patented claim 1 that recites the same element albeit in a slightly narrower score. What is claimed is encompassed by patented claim 1.
For claim 3, see patented claim 19 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 4, see patented claim 20 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 6, see patented claim 2 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 7, see patented claim 3 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 8, see patented claim 4 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 9, see patented claim 6 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 10, see patented claim 12 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 11, see patented claim 21 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 12, see patented claim 23 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 13, see patented claim 15 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 14, see patented claim 14 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 17, see patented claim 16 that recites what is claimed.
For claim 18, see patented claim 18 that recites what is claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoehne et al. (20200364725) disclose a product regulatory category assignment system and method that uses machine learning. This is relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626