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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/447,264, filed on 08/05/2025.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are now pending and have been examined.
Claim 20 has been cancelled by the applicant.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 1 claims a system comprising a memory and a processor. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 8 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 15 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category for patentability. Further, the claim is in conformity with the Kappos Memorandum of 2010 regarding medium claims, as it includes the phrase “non-transitory.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to “preventing a party from repeating an offer during the negotiation unless a predetermined condition is satisfied and requiring the party to continue to repeat the offer until and end of the negotiation in response to satisfaction of the predetermined condition, generating a notification in response to determining that the offer is a repeated offer, generating and updating a trend field including at least one graph indicating utility values of offers made during the negotiation, selecting a counteroffer based on analysis of current and previous negotiations, and communicating offers and counteroffers between multiple parties in real-time during the negotiation..” Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely a “certain method of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims are directed to “commercial or legal interactions- including agreements in the form of contracts.” In these claims, a negotiation of an offer between two parties is facilitated with predetermined rules. The computer only automates the negotiation process that could be carried out in the same manner in person or over a communication medium as facilitated by a mediator in a legal or commercial interaction with a set of rules. The claims as amended include such as notifications that an offer is a repeated offer, updating a trend field indicating utility values of offers, selecting of a counter offer, and communicating offers and counteroffers between multiple parties in real-time during negotiations. These steps are all part of what one would expect at live auctions and multi-party sales such as at livestock auctions, property auctions, stock market buying and selling of stocks, and other such commercial interactions in which boards are often used to show live pricing and bids, are updated in real-time, and various aspects of the sale or auction are communicated vocally or legibly in real-time by a live person, a digital or manual board, or other means. Therefore, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea, namely “commercial or legal interactions- including agreements in the form of contracts.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include a “processor,” “a medium/memory,” and a “network interface.” However, these recited elements are considered generic recitations of technical elements as they are recited at a high level of generality. These elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The claims also include an audio or a visual notification. However, an audio or visual notification is simply a type of generic notification and does not change the claims still being directed to an abstract idea. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the communication arts to use an audio or visual notification versus a verbal or written notification from a human person. The limitation is simply automating an audio or visual notification that could be performed by a human person during the commercial interaction. Therefore, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also include “a graphical user interface (GUI) to display…” and “communicating wirelessly with external devices….” These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and are claimed in a generic manner- see MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i)- “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google. The additional elements also include “using a trained neural network.” However, the using of this neural network is recited at a high level of generality and is considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The claims have no detail as to the training or use of the neural network. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include a “processors” “a memory/medium,” and a “network interface.” However, these recited elements are considered generic recitations of technical elements as they are recited at a high level of generality. These elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are therefore not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The claims also include an audio or a visual notification. However, an audio or visual notification is simply a type of conventional communication. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the communication arts to use an audio or visual notification versus a verbal or written notification from a human person. The limitation is simply automating an audio or visual notification that could be performed by a human person during the commercial interaction. Therefore, the limitation is not considered to be significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims also include “a graphical user interface (GUI) to display…” and “communicating wirelessly with external devices….” These additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and are claimed in a generic manner- see MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i)- “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google. The additional elements also include “using a trained neural network.” However, the using of this neural network is recited at a high level of generality and is considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The claims have no detail as to the training or use of the neural network. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claims in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for preventing or requiring a party to repeat or not repeat an offer in a negotiation depending on the fulfillment of predetermined conditions. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claim 2 is considered part of the abstract idea, as the type of predetermined condition does not change the analysis. Claim 3 is considered part of the abstract idea, as any negotiation involves receiving of an offer and determining it is valid or genuine and then responding to the offer with such as an acceptance or counteroffer. Claim 4 is considered part of the abstract idea as determining if an offer matches a previous offer is considered part of a negotiation in which the validity or genuineness of an offer is determined. Claim 5 is considered part of the abstract idea as every negotiation includes an offer followed by acceptance, rejection of, or a counteroffer depending on the recipient’s attitude towards the offer as being sufficient to accept, irrational and ridiculous, or somewhere in between. Claims 6 and 7 are considered part of the abstract idea as common parts of the negotiation process or commercial interaction. Claim 21 is considered part of the abstract idea, as a requirement for offers and bids during facilitation of an auction or other commercial interaction, or implementation of other set rules, is part of conducting the human activity, namely the commercial interaction between parties. The other dependent claims mirror those already discussed above.
Therefore, claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhukov, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0110466 A1 in view of Gordon, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0022040 A1 and in further view of Carcamo, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0306540 A1 and in further view of Lanfranchi, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0172264 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 Zhukov teaches:
A method (system) (medium) of implementing a negotiation comprising:
preventing a party from repeating an offer during the negotiation unless a predetermined condition is satisfied (see [0045]-[0048] in which a buyer is prevented from submitting a same repeat offer after submitting a first offer unless a condition such as a time lapse has been satisfied)
communicating wirelessly with external devices via a network interface to exchange offers and counteroffers between multiple parties in real-time during the negotiation (see [0036], [0042], [0097], and [0100] which teaches the multiple parties in the negotiation communicating wirelessly using a network interface; see also [0007], [0040]-[0043], [0049], and [0076]-[0084] which shows communications regarding offers and counteroffers between multiple parties occurring in real-time during negotiation)
Zhukov, however, does not appear to specify:
requiring the party to continue to repeat the offer until an end of the negotiation in response to satisfaction of the predetermined condition
generating a notification in response to determining that the offer is a repeated offer, wherein the notification includes at least one of a visual notification
Gordon teaches:
requiring the party to continue to repeat the offer until an end of the negotiation in response to satisfaction of the predetermined condition (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0042] in which once conditions such as a time period or a minimum highest bid being met, the proxy bids which can be changed and withdrawn become actual bids and the bidder can no longer modify or cancel their bids in the negotiation, but the bid remains the same)
generating a notification in response to determining that the offer is a repeated offer, wherein the notification includes at least one of a visual notification (see [0018] in which a visual notification is generated when an updated offer, including inherently a repeated offer, is determined)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Gordon with Zhukov because Zhukov already teaches an auction-style negotiation and locking in offers after certain conditions such as everyone has submitted their offer, a certain bid price is reached, etc., allows for everyone to have a fair chance to assess the field of competition and allows a seller or negotiator a chance to consider all final offers evenly.
Zhukov and Gordon, however, does not appear to specify:
updating a graphical user interface to display a trend field including at least one graph indicating utility values of offers made during negotiation
Carcamo teaches:
updating a graphical user interface to display a trend field including at least one graph indicating utility values of offers made during negotiation (see Figures 2, 4B, 5B, and 7 and [0095]-[0096], [0103], [0116]-[0118], [0150], and [0162]-[0164] in which graphs of updated bids are displayed that show the overall trend and include point values for each offer, and this all occurs during the real estate negotiation process)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Carcamo with Zhukov and Gordon because Zhukov already teaches a graph or prospective buyer bids and accompanying analysis, and a graph with a displayed offer trend and associated values would allow a seller to make better informed decisions on offer acceptance and analysis.
Zhukov, Gordon, and Carcamo, however, does not appear to specify:
selecting a counteroffer using a trained neural network based on analysis of current and previous negotiations
Lanfranchi teaches:
selecting a counteroffer using a trained neural network based on analysis of current and previous negotiations (see Abstract, [0006]-[0007], [0026], [0072], [0089], [0098], and 0122] in which trained machine learning models are used to determine a counter offer based on current and past negotiation data)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Lanfranchi with Zhukov, Gordon, and Carcamo because Zhukov already teaches determining a counteroffer rather than simply accepting or rejection an offer, and using a trained neural network would allow for leveraging of machine learning for better analysis and negotiation and the training would allow for better learning and counter offer determination as more negotiation data becomes available.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi teaches:
the method of claim 8…
Zhukov further teaches:
receiving the offer, determining whether the offer is valid, generating a response to the offer in response to a determination that the offer is valid (see [0045]-[0048] in which the offer is received and responded to, and in which also each offer is checked for validity)
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi teaches:
the method of claim 10…
Zhukov further teaches:
wherein determining whether the offer is valid based on whether the offer matches a previous offer from the party during the negotiation (see [0045]-[0048])
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the combination of Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi teaches:
the method of claim 8…
Gordon further teaches:
determining whether all parties in the negotiation accept the offer, generating a second offer different from the offer in response to a determination that less than all parties in the negotiation accept the offer (see [0046])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Gordon with Zhukov because Zhukov already teaches an auction-style negotiation and locking in offers after certain conditions such as everyone has submitted their offer, a certain bid price is reached, etc., allows for everyone to have a fair chance to assess the field of competition and allows a seller or negotiator a chance to consider all final offers evenly.
Regarding claim 21 the combination of Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi teaches:
the system of claim 1
Gordon further teaches:
requiring the party to continue to repeat an offer that has been rejected until the end of the negotiation in response to satisfaction of the predetermined condition (see at least [0032]-[0033] and [0042] in which once conditions such as a time period or a minimum highest bid being met, the proxy bids which can be changed and withdrawn become actual bids and the bidder can no longer modify or cancel their bids in the negotiation, but the bid remains the same)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Gordon with Zhukov because Zhukov already teaches an auction-style negotiation and locking in offers after certain conditions such as everyone has submitted their offer, a certain bid price is reached, etc., allows for everyone to have a fair chance to assess the field of competition and allows a seller or negotiator a chance to consider all final offers evenly.
**The examiner is not entirely clear due to the broadness of the claim language what the claim is trying to capture, as requiring an offer to be repeated after it has been rejected would seem to be after negotiations have ended. Is this a provisional initial rejection before further negotiation? How would there be any counteroffer if the offer needs to stay the same and only be repeated?**
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhukov, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0110466 A1 in view of Gordon, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0022040 A1 and in further view of Carcamo, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0306540 A1 and in further view of Lanfranchi, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0172264 A1 and in further view of Sandor, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0174438 A1.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi teaches:
the method of claim 8…
Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the predetermined condition includes all acceptable offers for the party have been issued
Sandor teaches:
wherein the predetermined condition includes all acceptable offers for the party have been issued (see [0069]-[0070] in which all participants submit acceptable offers within the initial pricing period, after which participants cannot amend their offers or submit new offers and therefore all acceptable offers have been issued)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Sandor with Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi because Zhukov already teaches an auction-style negotiation and Gordon teaches locking in offers after certain conditions, and a condition being all acceptable offers have been issued allows for a period of submission and amending followed by offers being held where they are and not amended, allowing everyone to have a fair chance to assess the field of competition and allows a seller or negotiator a chance to consider all final offers evenly.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhukov, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0110466 A1 in view of Gordon, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0022040 A1 and in further view of Carcamo, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0306540 A1 and in further view of Lanfranchi, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0172264 and in further view of Singhal, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0161236 A1.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi teaches:
the method of claim 10…
Zhukov further teaches:
generating the response to the offer including acceptance in response to the offer being a rational offer (see [0002], [0063], and [0070])
Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi, however, does not appear to specify:
generating the response to the offer including a counteroffer in response to the offer being an irrational offer
Singhal teaches:
generating the response to the offer including a counteroffer in response to the offer being an irrational offer (see Figure 4, [0018]-[0019], [0028], and [0047]-[0052])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Singhal with Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi because Zhukov already teaches an auction-style negotiation as well as accepting or rejecting offers, and a counteroffer option allows for further negotiations and potential resolution.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhukov, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0110466 A1 in view of Gordon, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0022040 A1 and in further view of Carcamo, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0306540 A1 and in further view of Lanfranchi, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0172264 A1 and in further view of Wang, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0368283 A1.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination of Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi teaches:
the method of claim 8…
Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi, however, does not appear to specify:
determining whether all parties in the negotiation have issued repeat offers
terminating the negotiation without acceptance in response to a determination that all parties in the negotiation have issued repeat offers
Wang teaches:
determining whether all parties in the negotiation have issued repeat offers, terminating the negotiation without acceptance in response to a determination that all parties in the negotiation have issued repeat offers (see at least [0236] in which all parties have submitted offers in the auction and the reserve price is not met and so the auction is terminated)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Wang with Zhukov, Gordon, Carcamo, and Lanfranchi because Gordon already teaches an auction-style negotiation as well as users no longer able to change their offer after a period of time, and if at the end of the period of time the offers are not sufficient, terminating the negotiations without acceptance would allow the seller to move on and consider other options for negotiating a price that is acceptable to them.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 7-10 of the response that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem and the applicant lists basically all the technical components and aspects of the claims:
The examiner points out that “repeating of an optimal offer that has already been rejected” and other aspects of negotiating offers between parties is not a technical problem. It involves and uses technology, but this does not make the claimed invention a technical solution to a technical problem. The examiner points the applicant to Court decisions such as OIP Techs v Amazon.com and buySAFE v Google which are e-commerce type systems and recite multiple technical components performing many aspects of the invention, but the Court still found that the claims in those instances recite and are directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the “Waste of computational resources,” and “inefficient use of network bandwidth,” among other listed technical problems is not remedied by the claimed invention. The claims do not recite a way to prevent waste of all computational resources by improvement of the computer, another technology, or the technical field. Any alleged improvement is only to what offers are allowed or not allowed to be repeated based on conditions and the ability to display graphs, notify users, and select counteroffers during the negotiation process. The technology is being used to automate the negotiation process, not to improve the use of network bandwidth through some kind of improvement in the computer, another technology, or the technical field.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103:
The applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the amendments to the claims, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The following prior art reference was not relied upon in this office action but is considered pertinent to the applicant’s invention:
Blair, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0240628 A1- see Figure 7 and [0071] in which a graph of current offers and the progress in negotiations is displayed on the interface
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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).
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626