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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are currently amended.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 were previously 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.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The present claimed steps simultaneously optimize price waterfall elements such as list price, discount, rebate, and profit margin which are commercial/economic variables. The claim establishes constraints and coefficients, evaluates satisfaction of those constraints, changes pricing variables, and repeats the process until the pricing variables converge on an acceptable solution. The Examiner asserts that optimizing commercial pricing parameters according to specified constraints can be characterized as certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions/economic practices. The optimization operations could also implicate the mathematical concepts category because the agents use scores, constraints, coefficients, iterative adjustments, and convergence criteria. As a result, the Examiner submits that the present claims recite abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong one
Under Step 2A, Prong Two
The claimed multi-agent architecture appears to be used to calculate better business/pricing values, rather than to improve the operation of the computer or another technological process.
As a result, the optimized list price still fall within the abstract idea characterization. There is no clearly claimed improvement to computer processing, memory utilization, network communication, database architecture, or another technical field. The server, memory, UI, and API appear primarily to provide the computing environment in which the economic optimization occurs.
The examiner submits that performing an abstract calculation or economic process onto a computer does not by itself make it eligible. The Supreme Court's Alice decision specifically explains that implementing an abstract concept using conventional computer components does not necessarily provide the required inventive concept.
Under Step 2B
The present claims recite the following architecture server, memory, user interface, API.
This architecture is merely instructing a generic computer to optimize pricing.
According to the specification the claimed architecture is basically functional labels for conventional optimization operations See at least para. 0048 and figure 7.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the limitation “select a direction of action” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what constitutes a direction of action.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the limitation “adaptively converges toward a state in which the satisfaction scores of the agents are within a specified range,” which renders the claim indefinite because adaptively converges toward a state is vague (how close the multi-agent optimization engine should be to the state in which the satisfaction scores of the agents are within a specified range) and “within a specified range” is also indefinite because the specification is silent about what that range is.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the limitation “each software-based agent to exchange satisfaction messages with one or more neighboring agents”, “at least one variable agent to receive feedback from at least one neighboring criterion agent including a satisfaction score associated with a target constraint”, and “each software-based agent to repeat the exchange of the satisfaction messages” which renders the claim indefinite because there is inconsistency within the limitations of the claim. Each software agent exchange…only variable agent receive feedback…each software repeat the exchange.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the limitation “optimized data associated with the state via a user interface” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what data is reported (it can be any data associated with the state).
Claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 depend from the independent claims and do not cure the noted deficiency. Therefore, they are also rejected under 112(b).
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; 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; cause: each software-based agent to exchange satisfaction messages with one or more neighboring agents of the plurality of software-based agents, at least one variable agent to receive feedback from at least one neighboring criterion agent including a satisfaction score associated with a target constraint, the at least one variable agent to determine, based on the feedback, whether a change to a respective price waterfall element is required, in response to determining that a change is required, the at least one variable agent to select a direction of action and iteratively adjust a respective value of the respective price waterfall element, and each software-based agent to repeat the exchange of the satisfaction messages and the iterative adjustment of the respective value until adaptively converges 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 optimized data being made accessible”
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”, “executing a multi-agent optimization engine configured to”, “via a user interface” “via an application programming interface (API)”. 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”, “executing a multi-agent optimization engine configured to”, “via a user interface” “via an application programming interface (API)”. 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
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tellefsen (US 20070294192 A1). Tellefsen teaches determining an optimal set of prices or price changes in an integrated price management system, said method comprising: defining pricing goals and constraints; selecting a business segment from a group of defined business dimensions; and generating optimized prices or price changes for said selected business segment. Nicolas Couellan et al. “Self-adaptive Support Vector Machine: A multi-agent optimization Perspective”. Couellan teaches Multi-agents systems break down complex optimization problems into elementary ‘‘oracle’’ tasks and perform a collaborative solving process resulting in a self-organized solution of the complex problems.
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) 273-3734.
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
Prosecution Insights