DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are currently amended.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are cancelled.
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.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9
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. 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. 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 (“by a server having one or more processors and memory”, “by a multi-agent optimization engine”, “wherein the multi-agent optimization engine comprises a plurality of software-based agents including at least a variable agent for”, “a computation agent for”) do not improve any existing technology.
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. 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 § 102
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner submits that Applicant’s arguments regarding Boswell are moot in view of the newly introduced reference by the Examiner (Dangaltchev). Please see rejection 35 USC § 103 below.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the pending 35 USC § 103 rejection of the pending claims 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: receiving an initial price waterfall comprising a plurality of initial price waterfall elements, the initial price waterfall associated with a product and having a plurality of successive pricing deductions; receiving domain data comprising historical transaction data associated with the initial price waterfall; optimizing the plurality of initial price waterfall elements of the initial price waterfall based on the domain data and user- specified boundaries, thereby forming an optimized price waterfall having at least one price waterfall element that differs from the initial price waterfall elements in the initial price waterfall, determining values of a list price and at least one other variable, computing optimization values, and criterion agents for managing criteria in computing the optimization values, and wherein the optimization of the plurality of initial price waterfall elements comprises adjusting one or more of the computed optimization values based on interactions between each of the plurality of software-based agents; repeating the optimization of the plurality of initial price waterfall elements until a user-specified output is achieved; and reporting, by the server, the optimized price waterfall to a user”
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 “by a server having one or more processors and memory”, “by a multi-agent optimization engine”, “wherein the multi-agent optimization engine comprises a plurality of software-based agents including at least a variable agent for”, “a computation agent for”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the steps of “receiving” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. 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 “by a server having one or more processors and memory”, “by a multi-agent optimization engine”, “wherein the multi-agent optimization engine comprises a plurality of software-based agents including at least a variable agent for”, “a computation agent for”. The steps of “receiving” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Boswell et al. (US 20030126053 A1) in view of Dangaltchev et al. (US 20160148233 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Boswell teaches A method for simultaneously optimizing price waterfall elements, the method comprising: [Boswell, Abstract, Boswell teaches “A system and method for analyzing a financial services pricing process. The method includes the steps of receiving data in at least one input file of a pricing process summary tool from at least one data source and generating a waterfall based on the data received. The step of generating the waterfall includes measuring predetermined pricing metrics using the received data, and graphing the predetermined pricing metrics. The waterfall identifies the present value of each of the predetermined pricing metrics in relation to others of the predetermined pricing metrics” wherein The waterfall identifies the present value of each of the predetermined pricing metrics in relation to others of the predetermined pricing metrics is equivalent to simultaneously optimizing price waterfall elements] receiving, by a server having one or more processors and memory, an initial price waterfall comprising a plurality of initial price waterfall elements, the initial price waterfall associated with a product and having a plurality of successive pricing deductions; [Boswell, para. 0029, Boswell teaches “If the financial services system 10 and the waterfall tool 20 are linked by the communications link, each of the financial services systems 10 and the waterfall tool 20 may include a server for transmitting and receiving data” wherein a server to receive data. The Abstract teaches “includes the steps of receiving data in at least one input file of a pricing process summary tool from at least one data source” wherein initial price waterfall elements. Further, para. 0061 teaches “The pricing metrics calculated may include a market price, a market gap, a list price, an underwriting, a discount amount, a rider amount, a premium, a commission amount, and a bonus amount” wherein a discount amount is equivalent pricing deduction. Also, see figure five of Boswell which teaches all of the waterfall buckets are shown on the waterfall as a percentage of invoice] receiving, by the server, domain data comprising historical transaction data associated with the initial price waterfall; [Boswell, para. 0067, Boswell teaches “The dashboard may be linked to a sum worksheet including data comparing the company's price to a competitive market price throughout various cells” wherein comparing the company's price to a competitive market price is equivalent to receiving domain data comprising historical transaction data. Also, see 0029 “If the financial services system 10 and the waterfall tool 20 are linked by the communications link, each of the financial services systems 10 and the waterfall tool 20 may include a server for transmitting and receiving data” wherein receiving by a server]
Boswell does not specifically teach, however; Dangaltchev teaches optimizing, by a multi-agent optimization engine of the server, the plurality of initial price waterfall elements of the initial price waterfall based on the domain data and user- specified boundaries, thereby forming an optimized price waterfall having at least one price waterfall element that differs from the initial price waterfall elements in the initial price waterfall, [Dangaltchev, claim 1, Dangaltchev teaches “calculating, using the server, an optimal price discount for the product based on the predicted profit or the predicted revenue” wherein optimal price waterfall. Para.0101 teaches “determines whether the maximal discount (d.sub.p.sup.+) for positive profit lift is greater than a threshold. The threshold may be set by a stakeholder based on a business earning objective” wherein based on specified values and wherein the optimized price value is known to a skilled in the art to be different from the initial price] wherein the multi-agent optimization engine comprises a plurality of software-based agents [Dangaltchev, para. 0032, Dangaltchev teaches “The processor(s) 202 may execute software instructions by performing various input, logical, and/or mathematical operations.”] including at least a variable agent for determining values of a list price and at least one other variable, [Dangaltchev, para. 0005, Dangaltchev teaches “then determining the polynomialarity between the purchase probability and the variable price discount amount; determining, using the one or more computing devices, a retail price (p) for the particular product” wherein a retail price is equivalent to a list price] a computation agent for computing optimization values, [Dangaltchev, para. 0001, Dangaltchev teaches “the present specification uses linear or in some cases non-linear dynamic discount optimization models to determine optimized discounts” wherein the optimization models is equivalent to a computation agent] and criterion agents for managing criteria in computing the optimization values, [Dangaltchev, para. 0104, Dangaltchev teaches “For example, the probability computation module 322 may determine that for a particular product or class of products (or other criteria, such as web analytics data 240, product data 242, user profile data 244, etc.) another model is more accurate for a given transaction (e.g., a partially linear model)” wherein managing criteria] and wherein the optimization of the plurality of initial price waterfall elements comprises adjusting one or more of the computed optimization values based on interactions between each of the plurality of software-based agents; [Dangaltchev, para. 0005, Dangaltchev teaches “determining, using the one or more computing devices, whether to optimize the price discount for maximal revenue; computing, using the one or more computing devices, a revenue-optimal discount (DR) using the formula D_R=p/2−b/2c; computing, using the one or more computing devices, a discounted price using the retail price (p) and the revenue-optimal discount (DR); determining, using the one or more computing devices, whether to optimize the price discount for maximal profit; computing, using the one or more computing devices, a profit-optimal discount (DP) using the formula D_P=m/2−b/2c; computing, using the one or more computing devices, a discounted price using the retail price (p) and the profit-optimal discount (DP)” wherein interaction between different values calculated by software agents] repeating, by the multi-agent optimization engine, the optimization of the plurality of initial price waterfall elements until a user-specified output is achieved; [Dangaltchev, para. 0005, Dangaltchev teaches “determining, using the one or more computing devices, whether the revenue-maximum discount (dcustom-characterR) is greater than a threshold; calculating, using the one or more computing devices, a discounted price using the retail price (p) and the maximum price discount (dR)” wherein the threshold is equivalent to a specified output] and reporting, by the server, the optimized price waterfall to a user. [Dangaltchev, claim 1, Dangaltchev teaches “and presenting the product page on the client device of the customer for display to the customer”]
Boswell teaches receiving data in at least one input file of a pricing process summary tool from at least one data source and generating a waterfall based on the data received and Dangaltchev teaches determining an optimal discounted price for a customer. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of determining discounted price for a customer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Boswell to incorporate the teaching of Dangaltchev by optimizing the discount price based on multiple factors. The motivation to combine Boswell with Dangaltchev has the advantage of customizing discounts for particular users and particular products in such a way that optimizes predicted profits and revenues based on the shopping preferences of particular users when shopping for particular products.
Regarding claim 2. Boswell in view of Dangaltchev teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Boswell teaches further comprising receiving a revenue/profit coefficient input by the server and from the user, and wherein the optimizing by the multi-agent optimization engine is further based on the revenue/profit coefficient [Boswell, para. 0027, Boswell teaches “The system may include a financial services system 10, a waterfall tool 20 and a waterfall output 30. Waterfall tool 20 is a tool which can be used to show revenues cascading down from a base list price to an invoice price and then to a pocket price. Each element of price structure represents a revenue "leak". The waterfall tool 20 may be used to manage revenue leaks and thereby enhance price performance” wherein using revenues in price waterfall optimization].
Regarding claim 3. Boswell in view of Dangaltchev teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 (as above). Further, Boswell teaches wherein the multi-agent optimization engine is responsive to a first value of the revenue/profit coefficient to maximize revenue of the optimized price waterfall, and is responsive to a second value of the revenue/profit coefficient to maximize profit of the optimized price waterfall [Boswell, para. 0027, Boswell teaches “The system may include a financial services system 10, a waterfall tool 20 and a waterfall output 30. Waterfall tool 20 is a tool which can be used to show revenues cascading down from a base list price to an invoice price and then to a pocket price. Each element of price structure represents a revenue "leak". The waterfall tool 20 may be used to manage revenue leaks and thereby enhance price performance” wherein Each element of price structure represents a revenue "leak" is indicative of analyzing multiple values of revenues for price waterfall optimization].
Regarding claim 4. Boswell in view of Dangaltchev teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Boswell teaches wherein the plurality of initial price waterfall elements comprises an initial list price, an initial on invoice discount, an initial off invoice rebate, and an initial end of period discount [Boswell, para. 0061, Boswell teaches “The waterfall worksheet 51 may then calculate the values for each bucket or metric to generate the bar graph shown in FIG. 5. The pricing metrics calculated may include a market price, a market gap, a list price, an underwriting, a discount amount, a rider amount, a premium, a commission amount, and a bonus amount” emphasis added. wherein initial list price, an initial on invoice discount, an initial off invoice rebate. Further para. 0079 teaches “The waterfall discount buckets or pricing metrics may include a total dollar amount of discounts granted by the insurer during a predetermined time period” which is equivalent to initial end of period discount].
Regarding claim 5. Boswell in view of Dangaltchev teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 (as above). Further, Boswell teaches wherein the multi-agent optimization engine simultaneously optimizes each of the plurality of initial price waterfall elements [Boswell, Abstract, Boswell teaches “A system and method for analyzing a financial services pricing process. The method includes the steps of receiving data in at least one input file of a pricing process summary tool from at least one data source and generating a waterfall based on the data received. The step of generating the waterfall includes measuring predetermined pricing metrics using the received data, and graphing the predetermined pricing metrics. The waterfall identifies the present value of each of the predetermined pricing metrics in relation to others of the predetermined pricing metrics” wherein the waterfall identifies the present value of each of the predetermined pricing metrics in relation to others of the predetermined pricing metrics is equivalent to simultaneously optimizing price waterfall elements].
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a method claim while claim 7 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, the program being executable by a processor to perform a method for optimizing a price waterfall which is anticipated by Boswell para. 91.
Regarding claims 8-11, claims 8-11 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2-5, respectively; therefore, claims 8-11 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 2-5, respectively. Claims 2-5 are method claims while claims 8-11 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, the program being executable by a processor to perform a method for optimizing a price waterfall which is anticipated by Boswell para. 91.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a method claim while claim 13 is directed to a server including a memory and a processor which is anticipated by Boswell para. 95.
Regarding claims 14-17, claims 14-17 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2-5, respectively; therefore, claims 14-17 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 2-5, respectively. Claims 2-5 are method claims while claims 14-17 are directed to a server including a memory and a processor which is anticipated by Boswell para. 95.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose telephone number is (571) 272-0819. 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) 273-3734.
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