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 .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 05/06/2025, Applicant, on 11/04/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 uses multi software agents within the AMAS for computations and determining values to optimize waterfall prices. The present claims are directed to waterfall optimizations using software applications. Applicant’s arguments on page 8 regarding “the claims relate to a multi-agent optimization engine that directs software-based agents to exchange satisfaction messages neighboring agents, compute a satisfaction score, and iteratively adjust respective values in response to feedback such that the agents adaptively converge towards a state in which the satisfaction scores are within a specified range” do not provide anything new except for a search using communication over a network to determine a satisfaction score within a range. The Examiner submits that the present claims are only doing search by a computer. In other words, the present claims are performing generic computer functions using generic computer components. As such, the Examiner does not see any technical improvements over the prior arts in the claims. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements in the claims “in a memory of a server”, “by the server”, “engine”, “instantiating a plurality of software-based agents including at least a variable agent, computation agent, and criterion agent, each agent corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of price waterfall elements according to the stored configuration data; executing a multi-agent optimization configured to cause: each software-based agent to exchange satisfaction messages with one or more neighboring agents of the plurality of software-based agent, each software-based agent to”, “each software-based agent to iteratively adjust a respective value in response to satisfaction feedback from the neighboring agents”, “wherein the execution of the multi-agent optimization is further configured to”, “cause the plurality of agents to”, “via a user interface”) do not improve any existing technology by communicating with different software agents to calculate a satisfaction score. As a result, Applicant’s arguments pages 8-9 “the claimed features impose meaningful limits and clearly integrate optimization of price waterfalls into a distributed computing system that provides efficiency by its convergence techniques” are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding optimizing waterfall price using multiple elements at the same time versus optimizing using one element at a time is a business improvement. One skilled in the art would not see in the present claims such a technical improvement. Examples of claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas). As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of optimizing waterfall price using multiple software agents is accomplished in a non-conventional way. Applicant’s arguments “an unconventional improvement to optimizing data elements by use of multiple software- based agents in a distributed architecture that provides adaptive feedback in adjusting computed optimization values to adaptively converge toward a state in which the satisfaction scores of the agents are within a specified range for price waterfall optimization” are not persuasive as it is explained above.
The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of optimizing price waterfall based on historical transactions and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.”
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
The arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
None of the cited documents by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in the independent claims as amended, nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. The pending claims 1-20 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
In conclusion, the Examiner withdraws the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 102/103 in the present office action.
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 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of optimizing price waterfall based on historical transactions.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method for simultaneously optimizing price waterfall elements, the method comprising: storing configuration data defining boundary conditions, coefficients, and target constraints for a plurality of price waterfall elements including at least a list price, a discount, a rebate, and a profit margin; compute a satisfaction score based on a target constraint and a value for its respective price waterfall element, adaptively converge toward a state in which the satisfaction scores of the agents are within a specified range, thereby simultaneously optimizing the plurality of price waterfall elements; and reporting, by the server optimized data associated with the state”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for optimizing price waterfall based on historical transactions. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 7 and 13 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 7 and 13 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for optimizing price waterfall based on historical transactions. As a result, claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “in a memory of a server”, “by the server”, “engine”, “instantiating a plurality of software-based agents including at least a variable agent, computation agent, and criterion agent, each agent corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of price waterfall elements according to the stored configuration data; executing a multi-agent optimization configured to cause: each software-based agent to exchange satisfaction messages with one or more neighboring agents of the plurality of software-based agent, each software-based agent to”, “each software-based agent to iteratively adjust a respective value in response to satisfaction feedback from the neighboring agents”, “wherein the execution of the multi-agent optimization is further configured to”, “cause the plurality of agents to”, “via a user interface”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 7 and 13 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, the program being executable by a processor to perform a method” and claim 13 further recites “A system for optimizing a price waterfall, the system comprising: a server including a memory and a processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executed by the processor”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 7 and 13 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 13. As a result, claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “in a memory of a server”, “by the server”, “engine”, “instantiating a plurality of software-based agents including at least a variable agent, computation agent, and criterion agent, each agent corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of price waterfall elements according to the stored configuration data; executing a multi-agent optimization configured to cause: each software-based agent to exchange satisfaction messages with one or more neighboring agents of the plurality of software-based agent, each software-based agent to”, “each software-based agent to iteratively adjust a respective value in response to satisfaction feedback from the neighboring agents”, “wherein the execution of the multi-agent optimization is further configured to”, “cause the plurality of agents to”, “via a user interface”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 7 and 13 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, the program being executable by a processor to perform a method” and claim 13 further recites “A system for optimizing a price waterfall, the system comprising: a server including a memory and a processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executed by the processor”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 7 and 13 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 13. As a result, claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 11/04/2025 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the withdrawal of the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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 of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights