DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-14 as originally filed are currently pending and considered below.
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 Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on December 09, 2025. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Priority
Application 19/413,048 was filed on 12/09/2025 and is a continuation-in-part application claiming priority to US non-provisional application No. 18/635,062 filed on 4/15/2024 and claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0063359, filed on May 16, 2023.
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 1‐14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1‐7 are directed to an apparatus (machine) and Claims 8-14 are directed to a method (process). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claim 8. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
An apparatus of verifying authenticity of seller’s identity for license agency service, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory which stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors to perform: receiving license agency service application information of a seller and product information of one or more products that the seller will export from one or more devices related to the seller; verifying an authenticity of the seller’s identity, by generating a random code and transmitting it to the one or more devices of the seller, receiving an encrypted code data from the one or more devices of the seller that is generated by a predetermined software application in the one or more devices of the seller in response to receipt of the random code, decrypting the encrypted code data, and analyzing the decrypted code data and the generated code to determine if the decrypted code data matches the generated code data, transmitting license application information generated based on the license agency service application information and the product information to the user device of one or more agents; receiving license information issued from a customs management authority, corresponding to the license application information, from the agent or the customs management authority; and providing the license information to the one or more devices.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of performing a procedure for making an export declaration and obtaining a license (an export permit) to/from a customs management authority (a customs administration, etc.) on behalf of a seller who will sell internationally. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the data processor and related computer components, this claim encompasses a person receiving license application and product information from a seller, preparing and transmitting an application to a customs authority-actions that could be performed manually in a conventional licensing agency environment as part of a regulatory compliance process. Additionally, the claimed encryption merely secures the exchange of information by using generated codes to authenticate and verify the information exchanged between the parties, which can be done manually using a unique identifier, password, or verification code to confirm the authenticity of exchanged information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers legal and commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “processor”, “memory”, “devices”, “a predetermined software application” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1 and 8 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of “processor”, “memory”, “devices”, “a predetermined software application”. Claim 8 recites the same additional elements as Claim 1.. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) 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 using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim to include connecting to a database for trade in the one or more products to receive at least one of the license agency service application information or the product information from the database via communication. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because the limitations recite steps for performing a procedure for making an export declaration and obtaining a license, rather than proving a specific technological improvement. Additionally, the dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 3 and 9 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim to include wherein the license agency service application information includes deregistration type information of the product: before the transmitting to the agent, verifying the license agency service application information based on a preset required information item corresponding to the deregistration type information. In addition, the claim recites the additional element of “user device” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 4 and 10 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim to include wherein the license agency service application information includes country information to which the product is to be exported: determining whether to apply for a translated license based on the country information; transmitting translated license application information based on the license information issued corresponding to the product to the agent in response to the determination that license translation is required; and receiving translated license information from the agent or the customs management authority. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because the limitations recite steps for performing a procedure for making an export declaration and obtaining a license, rather than proving a specific technological improvement. Additionally, the dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim to include before the transmitting to the agent, verifying whether license issuance for the product information is a duplicate application using identification information corresponding to the license agency service application information or the product information and wherein the license agency service application information includes shipment type information for the export of the product, and wherein the transmitting to the agent comprises selectively gathering the received information based on the shipment type information to generate the license application information. In addition, the claim recites the additional element of “user device” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 7 and 13 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim to include before the providing of the license information, verifying whether at least one of a shipment type, a product name or a name of the seller of the license information received from the agent or the customs management authority is consistent with the license application information. In addition, the claim recites the additional element of “the one or more devices” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 14 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claim to include the same abstract idea of Claim 8. In addition, the claim recites the additional element of “a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing computer program” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20060004591) in view of Wang et al. (US20120234908), further in view of Refior et al. (US 20180144404).
In regards to Claim 1, Johnson et al. teaches an apparatus of verifying authenticity of seller’s identity for license agency service, comprising: (See Abstract & FIG 1)
receiving license agency service application information of a seller and product information of one or more products that the seller will export from one or more devices related to the seller; (See [0004]- The corporate export/import office receives export/import license requests from the export control office of any of a large number of business units of the corporation. In FIG. 1, one of the many business units is designated 14. The corporate export/import office 12 of FIG. 1 performs a review of the completeness and adherence to standards of the electronic license requests which it receives from the business unit 14… the review represented by decision block 20 of FIG. 1 may result in approval of the electronic export/import license application, meaning that all requirements for approval of the license have been fulfilled, including entry of all information and conformance with all applicable standards. Also See [0008]- relevant information is entered into an electronic application for a license for import or export (import/export) of ITAR-related materials. An electronic copy of the electronic license application is saved. Also See [0019]- The Create License Request screen 318 presents the choice for a License Request Wizard 320 or for an on-screen Request Input form or screen 322.The Request Input Form 322 includes spaces for filling in the country or countries at which the end item will ultimately be located in case of an export, purpose of the export, and also other matter which may be important to the particular business unit, such as background history information for the request, the parties or freight forwarder, consignee, and the like.)
transmitting license application information generated based on the license agency service application information and the product information to the user device of one or more agents; (See [0006]- In FIG. 1, the electronic export/import license applications are received, docketed and staffed (distributed to the appropriate agency) by a governmental agency, as suggested by block 30. Also See [0008]- The electronic license application is transmitted from the corporate business unit licensing office to a corporate export-import licensing office for approval, and for submission by the corporate export/import office of an approved license application to an export/import control entity within the United States Government. This control entity may be the Department of State, or it may be a Defense-related agency.)
Johnson et al. teaches a computer program module and a method performed electronically but does not teach one or more processors, a memory which stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors to perform: verifying an authenticity of the seller’s identity, by generating a random code and transmitting it to the one or more devices of the seller, receiving an encrypted code data from the one or more devices of the seller that is generated by a predetermined software application in the one or more devices of the seller in response to receipt of the random code, decrypting the encrypted code data, and analyzing the decrypted code data and the generated code to determine if the decrypted code data matches the generated code data.
Wang et al. teaches:
one or more processors; (See [0112]-The steps of a method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination of the two.)
a memory which stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors to perform: (See [0112]- software module can reside in RAM memory, flash memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, registers, hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, or any other form of storage medium. An exemplary storage medium can be coupled to the processor such that the processor can read information from, and write information to, the storage medium. In the alternative, the storage medium can be integral to the processor.)
verifying an authenticity of the seller’s identity, by generating a random code and transmitting it to the one or more devices of the seller, receiving an encrypted code data from the one or more devices of the seller that is generated by a predetermined software application in the one or more devices of the seller in response to receipt of the random code, decrypting the encrypted code data, and analyzing the decrypted code data and the generated code to determine if the decrypted code data matches the generated code data, (See [0019]-[0020]- The anti-counterfeit certificate is an encrypted code that can uniquely identify an authentic item for counterfeit detection. For a given authentic item, its anti-counterfeit certificate is generated by the anti-counterfeit certificate generator. The anti-counterfeit certificate generator includes a plain-code encoder module 210 and an encryption module 220. The anti-counterfeit certificate is generated by encrypting a plain code. The plain code is generated by using descriptor parameters that describe the authentic item. Also See [0023]-[0024]-the plain code encoder module 210 concatenates the values of the selected descriptor parameters to form the generated plain code as a single value…the plain code encoder module 210 randomizes ordering of the concatenated descriptor parameter values and provides parameter location information in a known place in the generated plain code. The encryption module 220 receives the plain code from the plain code encoder module 210 and encrypts the plain code to produce the anti-counterfeit certificate. Also See [0055]- The plain-code decoder module 550 decodes plain codes received from the decryption module 540. The plain-code decoder module 550 reassembles the decoded information back into the descriptor parameters that were used in the encoding process, e.g., producer ID, product category ID, product serial number, etc. The plain-code decoder module 550 delivers the descriptor parameters to the authenticator module 560. Also See [0056]-The authenticator module 560 performs the authentication procedure on the descriptor parameters received from the plain code decoder 550. The authenticator module 560 determines whether the descriptor parameters are for authentic items and produces the authentication results. The authenticator module 560 delivers the authentication results to the data communicator module 510 and the data collector module 520. Also See [0057]-The authentication procedures can be application-specific. The function of an authentication algorithm can include a series of comparing actions between the descriptor parameter values provided by the plain code decoder module 550 and the corresponding data stored in the anti-counterfeit database 530. Example criteria used in authentication include: whether the details derived from the certificate sent from authentication client match with the records in anti-counterfeit database 530; and when hash codes are used in the certificate generation, whether the hash code derived from the certificate provided by the authentication client exist in the anti-counterfeit database 530.)
Johnson et al. and Wang et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing license for export or import shipments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Johnson et al. reference to further include one or more processors, a memory which stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors to perform, and verifying an authenticity of the seller’s identity, by generating a random code and transmitting it to the one or more devices of the seller, receiving an encrypted code data from the one or more devices of the seller that is generated by a predetermined software application in the one or more devices of the seller in response to receipt of the random code, decrypting the encrypted code data, and analyzing the decrypted code data and the generated code to determine if the decrypted code data matches the generated code data as taught by Wang et al. This is desirable such that it allows an anti-counterfeit authentication (ACA) systems and methods that can provide authentication services anytime and anywhere over available communication networks for any entities that need counterfeit detection (See Wang, [0003]).
The Johnson-Wang combination does not teach receiving license information issued from a customs management authority, corresponding to the license application information, from the agent or the customs management authority; providing the license information to the one or more devices.
However, Refior et al. teaches:
receiving license information issued from a customs management authority, corresponding to the license application information, from the agent or the customs management authority; providing the license information to the one or more devices. (See [0032]- The export legal control check determines whether the export customs document items comply with the export regulations (or rules) for obtaining at least one export license from the relevant authorities. An export license indicates that the authorities have granted the exporter (e.g., foreign supplier) the right to export the specified goods to the specified countries (e.g., country A). Also See [0049]- At 902, legal control checking module 222 receives the customs document item and one or more license types. Also See [0051]- Returning to FIG. 9, at 906, legal control checking module 222 retrieves a license based on the selection criteria. The license may be retrieved by querying database 226 or another data source. The license may be an export, domestic or import license. Each license may be described by objects. FIG. 11 shows exemplary objects (or attributes) 1102 that can be checked during the determination of a qualified license As shown, the exemplary license objects 1102 to be checked may be selected (or deselected) by the user via the user interface screen 1104. Also See [0052]- [0052] At 910, legal control checking module 222 determines if the license is qualified. The license is qualified if the customs document satisfies the license objects. If the license is qualified, it is assigned to the customs document item at 912. The process 710 then ends. If not, the process 710 continues to 914.).
Johnson et al., Wang et al., and Refior et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing license for export or import shipments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Johnson-Wang combination to further include receiving license information issued from a customs management authority, corresponding to the license application information, from the agent or the customs management authority; providing the license information to the one or more devices as taught by Refior et al. This is desirable such that it allows for a framework for extended legal control checking and a domestic legal control check are performed based on an export customs document to generate first and second results (See Refior, [0004]).
In regards to Claim 8, is rejected on a similar basis to Claim 1.
In regards to Claim 6 and 12, the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Johnson et al. further teaches:
wherein the license agency service application information includes shipment type information for the export of the product, and wherein the transmitting to the user device of the agent comprises selectively gathering the received information based on the shipment type information to generate the license application information (See [0008]- relevant information is entered into an electronic application for a license for import or export (import/export) of ITAR-related materials. Also See [0019]- The Create License Request screen 318 presents the choice for a License Request Wizard 320 or for an on-screen Request Input form or screen 322.The Request Input Form 322 includes spaces for filling in the country or countries at which the end item will ultimately be located in case of an export, purpose of the export, and also other matter which may be important to the particular business unit, such as background history information for the request, the parties or freight forwarder, consignee, and the like.).
In regards to Claim 7 and 13, the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Johnson et al. further teaches:
before the providing of the license information to the one or more devices, verifying whether at least one of a shipment type, a product name or a name of the seller of the license information received from the agent or the customs management authority is consistent with the license application information (See [0016]- More particularly, the request information entering by way of path 38 is electronic, and is applied to a decision process illustrated as a decision block 238. Block 238 represents an examination of the electronic license request received by way of path 38, and a decision as to whether it is compliant or non-compliant. In this context, compliant means complete and valid. This evaluation is performed at least electronically and preferably both electronically and manually. If the license request is compliant, the information is passed on to block 34 for generation of a license request. Also See [0027]- The electronic license application is at least electronically reviewed for approval at the corporate export/import licensing office (12). The electronic review includes verifying that (a) all relevant information is entered, and (b) the electronic license application meets applicable standards. The verification of meeting applicable standards may include verifying that the electronic license application has no missing or noncompliant materials.).
In regards to Claim 14, the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Refior et al. teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing computer program to perform the method of claim 8 (See [0021]- It should be appreciated that the framework described herein may be implemented as a method, a computer-controlled apparatus, a computer process, a computing system, or as an article of manufacture such as a computer-usable medium. These and various other features and advantages will be apparent from the following description. Also See Claim 20 “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code, the program code executable by a computer to perform steps comprising:”)..
Johnson et al., Wang et al., and Refior et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing license for export or import shipments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination to further include a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing computer program to perform the method as taught by Refior et al. This is desirable such that it allows for a framework for extended legal control checking and a domestic legal control check are performed based on an export customs document to generate first and second results (See Refior, [0004]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20060004591) in view of Wang et al. (US20120234908), in view of Refior et al. (US 20180144404), further in view of Le et al. (US 20030069831).
In regards to Claim 2, the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
The Johnson-Wang-Refior combination does not teach connecting to a database for trade in the one or more products to receive at least one of the license agency service application information or the product information from the database via communication.
However, Le et al. teaches:
connecting to a database for trade in the one or more products to receive at least one of the license agency service application information or the product information from the database via communication (See [0036]- If some or all of the products are not available in the selected destination country, then the buyer 11 is provided the option of investigating the possibility of purchasing the products from foreign sources. If the buyer chooses to investigate foreign sources for the products, then the commerce server identifies the locations of one or more potential foreign sources for the products by querying inventory management modules, including one or more databases, as appropriate for the various countries. For each located foreign source, the commerce server notes the relevant country and a warehouse, and generates a message containing data for a hypothetical transaction event 24. Each hypothetical transaction message is transmitted to an international-trade server 25 configured to manage issues relating to business tax, license (export administration), customs and/or logistics (TLCL). Also See [0040]- The application server will also generate messages querying databases containing information on the various parties' licenses for conducting the hypothetical transaction. In particular, selling parties will be examined to assure that they possess all necessary export licenses. Also See [0125]-licenses are required for exporting various goods from many countries. The export engine is preferably configured with service engines that verify a client has the proper export licenses, and that act to apply for needed licenses.).
Johnson et al., Wang et al., Refior et al., Le et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing license for export or import shipments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination to further include connecting to a database for trade in the one or more products to receive at least one of the license agency service application information or the product information from the database via communication as taught by Lee et al. This is desirable such that it allows for integrated systems, software and related business methods for handling international trade in a multitude of trade scenarios (See Le, [0004]).
Claim 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20060004591) in view of Wang et al. (US20120234908) in view of Refior et al. (US 20180144404), further in view of Yamagiwa (US 20050139664)
In regards to Claim 3 and 9, the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Johnson et al. further argues:
wherein the license agency service application information includes [deregistration type] information of the product, wherein the memory stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors to further perform: before the transmitting to the user device of the agent, verifying the license agency service application information based on a preset required information item (See [0016]- More particularly, the request information entering by way of path 38 is electronic, and is applied to a decision process illustrated as a decision block 238. Block 238 represents an examination of the electronic license request received by way of path 38, and a decision as to whether it is compliant or non-compliant. In this context, compliant means complete and valid. This evaluation is performed at least electronically and preferably both electronically and manually. If the license request is compliant, the information is passed on to block 34 for generation of a license request. Also See [0027]- The electronic license application is at least electronically reviewed for approval at the corporate export/import licensing office (12). The electronic review includes verifying that (a) all relevant information is entered, and (b) the electronic license application meets applicable standards. The verification of meeting applicable standards may include verifying that the electronic license application has no missing or noncompliant materials.).
The Johnson-Wang-Refior combination teaches wherein the license agency service application information includes information of the product, wherein the memory stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors to further perform: before the transmitting to the user device of the agent, verifying the license agency service application information based on a preset required information item but does not teach the information of the product corresponding to the deregistration type information.
However, Yamagiwa teaches:
corresponding to the deregistration type information (See [0058]- In the case when the vehicle is exported, and in the case where it is exported to a country (a region) to be managed according to the product management system, processing is performed in a manner similar to that for the used car transfer as described above. When the vehicle is exported to other countries (regions), the owner data in each of the database 120 of the vehicle management server 10, the RFID tag fixed to the vehicle, and the RFID tag 72 of the vehicle registration certificate 50 are updated or unregistered-deregistered. Additionally, vehicle history information in relation to the export record is added to the vehicle history data. Information necessary for the processing of an export function can be received, for example, from the terminal 20 at the custom house.)
Johnson et al., Wang et al., Refior et al., Yamagiwa are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing license for export or import shipments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination to further include corresponding to the deregistration type information as taught by Yamagiwa. This is desirable such that it allows for a product management system for managing the registration and/or history information of a product during a period from production of the product to disposal of the product (See Yamagiwa, [0003]).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20060004591) in view of Wang et al. (US20120234908), in view of Refior et al. (US 20180144404), further in view of Qiunn, JR (US20120036077).
In regards to Claim 4 and 10, the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Johnson et al. teaches:
wherein the license agency service application information includes country information to which the product is to be exported, (See [0019]- [0019] The Create License Request screen 318 presents the choice for a License Request Wizard 320 or for an on-screen Request Input form or screen 322. Experienced users may be better served by a document form to be filled out on-line, while less-skilled users may find the Wizard more useful. The Request Input Form 322 includes spaces for filling in the country or countries at which the end item will ultimately be located in case of an export, purpose of the export, and also other matter which may be important to the particular business unit, such as background history information for the request, the parties or freight forwarder, consignee, and the like.)
The Johnson-Wang-Refior combination does not teach wherein the memory stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors to further perform: determining whether to apply for a translated license based on the country information; transmitting translated license application information based on the license information issued corresponding to the product to the agent in response to the determination that license translation is required; and receiving translated license information from the agent or the customs management authority.
Qiunn, JR teaches:
wherein the memory stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors to further perform: determining whether to apply for a translated [license] based on the country information; (See [0007]- According to another aspect of the present invention, a filing management system is provided for managing the filing of patent applications to be filed in a plurality of patent offices located in various countries…the steps of receiving application filing order form information from the client and storing the application order form information in the filing manager database, generating a request for information and communicating this request to a service provider that prepared the application, sending at least some of the order form information to the translation partner for applications requiring translation into one or more appropriate languages,)
transmitting translated [license] application information based on the [license] information issued corresponding to the product to the agent in response to the determination that [license] translation is required; receiving translated [license] information from the agent or the customs management authority (See [0007]- the steps of receiving application filing order form information from the client and storing the application order form information in the filing manager database, generating a request for information and communicating this request to a service provider that prepared the application, sending at least some of the order form information to the translation partner for applications requiring translation into one or more appropriate languages, receiving translations from the translation partner, sending filing documents to filing agents for filing of the patent application in appropriate offices, sending filing documents and any other relevant documents to the prosecuting agent and forwarding confirmation of the filed documents to the client. Also See [0050]- Once the documents are verified to be complete and in a proper format, routine 100 identifies the countries where a patent application translation is required. The filing manager identifies where translation is required by comparing the county for each applicable filing, located in the country files table, to the country for the priority application in the priority application table. If the official language in the country where the priority application was filed is different from the official language in any country where an application is to be filed, then a translation is required. If translation is required, the filing manager 12 sends the application and amendments from the filing manager 12 to the translation partner 18 in step 126 along with a confirmation report generated by the filing manager database, similar to the confirmation report sent to client as set forth above.)
Johnson et al., Wang et al., Refior et al., and Qiunn, JR are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing license for export or import shipments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination to further include wherein the memory stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors to further perform: determining whether to apply for a translated [license] based on the country information and transmitting translated [license] application information based on the [license] information issued corresponding to the product to the agent in response to the determination that [license] translation is required; receiving translated [license] information from the agent or the customs management authority as taught by Qiunn, JR. This is desirable such that it allows for a system and method for managing the filing of legal documents in a plurality of governmental offices. (See Quinn, JR, [0001]).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20060004591) in view of Refior et al. (US 20180144404), further in view of Peterson et al. (US 20070168278).
In regards to Claims 5 and 11, the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
The Johnson-Wang-Refior combination teaches the license issuance and license agency but does not teach before the transmitting to the user device of the agent, verifying whether [license] issuance for the product information is a duplicate application using identification information corresponding to the [license agency] service application information or the product information. However, Peterson et al. teaches:
before the transmitting to the user device of the agent, verifying whether [license] issuance for the product information is a duplicate application using identification information corresponding to the [license agency] service application information or the product information (See [0017]- The application information is organized and stored in a central database (DB) of the system 12. A subset of the application information is submitted to a credit bureau 14 (step 105) (via a SSL certificate provided by the credit bureau to encrypt all data transfers) for generation of a report regarding the loan consumer's financial status for assessing the risk of granting a loan. Also See [[0023]-The loan processing server 12 checks the application information for personal identification information, such as social security number and/or email against previously stored loan applicant profiles 210 to determine if it is a duplicate of a previous submission 212. If the profile contains a match, i.e., one or more of the personal identification data is a duplicate, the system checks the date of the previous submission 214. If the dates are less than a predetermined number of days apart, the consumer 10 is informed that he or she must wait an additional number of days to apply for a loan 216.).
Johnson et al., Wang et al., Refior et al., and Peterson et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing license for export or import shipments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Johnson-Wang-Refior combination to further include wherein the service module includes a duplicate check unit configured to transmit identification information corresponding to the [license agency] service application information or the product information to the [license] management module and verify whether [license] issuance for the product information is a duplicate application as taught by Peterson et al. This is desirable such that it allows for methods for permitting loan consumers to apply for loans, and generating and presenting a set of qualified lenders and their loan offers to the loan consumer. (See Peterson, [0002])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manucha et al. (US20110258129) discloses a system and method for managing export licenses is disclosed. More particularly, but not by way of limitation, a system and method for managing creation of export license amendment forms relating to export and import of defense-related articles and services subject to regulations and regulatory agencies.
Taylor et al. (US20080294536) discloses a fulfillment services provider may offer export services to merchants, including generation of required export documentation; calculation, collection, and remittance of customs duties; and transportation via an international carrier.
Beck et al. (US20040117337) discloses a system and computer-based method are provided for performing export compliance review of electronic documents. An electronic document is submitted for export compliance review to a server over a network. The server automatically reviews the submitted document according to predefined export compliance rules and automatically generates export compliance information based on the review.
All sources listed above are relevant to the disclosed and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is 571-270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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 on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights