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 Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 6 November 2025.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 9-10 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11 recites “a display device. the”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a display device[.], the”.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 11 and 14 are dependent on claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-8, 11 and 14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 11-12; Claim 9, lines 10-11; and Claim 10, lines 12-13 recites “the estimate unit prices being newly received from the supplier and not used to generate the presumption model”. There is not sufficient support for this amendment in the instant specification. Page 10 of the applicant’s remarks cite to paragraph [0045] of the instant specification as providing support for this amendment. However, paragraph [0045] of the instant specification only describes the input layer having the same number of units as the number of elements of the items names of items A and B. Paragraph [0045] of the instant specification is silent regarding “estimate units of the estimate replies”. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion (see MPEP 2173.05 (i)). Therefore, Applicant’s specification does not provide adequate support for “the estimate unit prices being […] not used to generate the presumption model”. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be new matter.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, and 11-14 are dependent on claims 1, 9, and 10. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11-14 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 9, and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3 and 5-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “newly” in claim 1, line 11; claim 9, line 10; and claim 10, line 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “newly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the “newly” to mean that the action has occurred at some point in time.
Claim 1, lines 11-12; Claim 9, lines 10-11; and Claim 10, lines 12-13 recites “the estimate unit prices being newly received from the supplier and not used to generate the presumption model”. Claim 1, lines 4-7; Claim 9, lines 3-6; and claim 10, lines 5-8 recites “generate[ing] a presumption model […] with […] the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies as learning data”. This is contradictory because the first quote claims the estimate unit prices not being used and the second quote claims the estimate unit prices being used to generate the presumption model. Paragraph [0047] of the instant specification recites “estimate unit prices are given to the one output unit 33a and a presumption model is generated”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite the estimate unit prices being newly received from the supplier and [not] used to generate the presumption model.”
Claims 2-3, 5-8, and 11-14 are dependent on claims 1, 9, and 10. Therefore claims 2-3, 5-8, and 11-14 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 9, and 10.
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 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11 and 14 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., an apparatus), claims 9 and 12 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 10 and 13 is/are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium. As such, claims 1-3 and 5-14 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
receive estimate replies from a supplier;
data directly related to generate a presumption model with data directly related to calculation of estimated unit prices of the estimate replies, data not directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies, and the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies as learning data; and
presuming a unit price of a product/part; and
generate an analysis report showing relationships between the unit prices presumed and the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies and display the analysis report, the estimated unit prices being newly received from the supplier.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to presuming a unit price of a product/part. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a fundamental economic practice of calculating a price for a product/part which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): one or more hardware processors, generate a presumption model using a neural network, and a display device. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., neural networks) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) are do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, 11, and 14 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefore claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, 11 and 14 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 8 further recite(s) the additional element(s): a storage device (claim 8). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 8 is/are ineligible.
Claim 10 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 10 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 10 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable medium including programmed instructions, generate a presumption model using a neural network, and a display device. These additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., neural networks) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 13 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 10. Therefor claim(s) 13 are ineligible.
Representative Claim 9:
receive estimate replies from a supplier;
data directly related to generate a presumption model with data directly related to calculation of estimated unit prices of the estimate replies, data not directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies, and the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies as learning data; and
presuming a unit price of a product/part; and
generate an analysis report showing relationships between the unit prices presumed and the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies and display the analysis report, the estimate unit prices being newly received from the supplier.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to presuming a unit price of a product/part. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a fundamental economic practice of calculating a price for a product/part which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 9 recites the following additional element(s): generate a presumption model using a neural network and a display device. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., neural networks) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 9 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 12 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 9. Therefore, claim(s) 12 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boren (US 20200134683 A1) in view of Rattner (US 20190244267 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boren teaches an estimate presumption apparatus comprising:
one or more hardware processors (Paragraph [0058] “processing hardware 1304”) configured to:
receive estimate replies from a supplier; (Paragraph [0041] “FIG. 5, a salesperson utilizing the quote GUI display 300 may be negotiating with a potential customer […] To analyze the potential ramifications of increasing the discount, the user of the client device 106 may utilize the text box 306 to increase the discount percentage associated with the quote to 15%. In response to the modified discount attribute, the quote guidance process 200 dynamically updates the qualitative assessment associated with the quote and reapplies the approval rules to the modified quote. […] Based on the deal assessment and approval requirement indicia 512, 514, the salesperson may determine whether to proceed with the current quote or continue with modifying the quote and/or negotiating with the customer.”; Examiner notes that the quote generated by analyzing the discount percentage can be given to the customer and be stored as historical data 118.)
generate a presumption model using machine learning, with data directly related to calculation of estimated unit prices of the estimate replies [quantity per unit], data not directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies [data related to the particular user organizations or tenants], and the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies as learning data [price per unit]; (Paragraph [0051] “by default, the application platform 124, the price guidance application 128, or another component of the server 102 or database 104 may utilize artificial intelligence to analyze attributes of previous quotes maintained in the historical data 118 associated with the user (or the user's organization or group) with respect to an outcome variable (e.g., the final discount percentage, the final per unit price, or the like) to identify a correlative subset of attributes to be utilized as input variables to the model initially. Then, using that subset of variable, regression modeling is run with respect to the historical data 118 to develop a model or set of models for calculating expected pricing (e.g., the expected discount percentage, the expected per unit price, or the like)”; Paragraph [0022] “historical deal data 118 that includes […] average price per unit, median price per unit, average quantity, median quantity”)
presume a unit price of a product/part using the presumption model; (Paragraph [0026] “the pricing model 116 may be configured to calculate a per unit price”) and
generate an analysis report showing relationships between the unit prices presumed using the presumption model and the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies and display the analysis report on a display device, the estimate unit prices being newly received from the supplier and used to generate the presumption model. (Paragraph [0032] “the quote guidance process 200 also calculates or otherwise determines a qualitative assessment of the current quote based on the historical deal data and provides graphical indicia of the qualitative assessment of the current quote (tasks 210, 212). In this regard, the current quote may be scored or otherwise compared to the historical deal data 118 and the various historical deal metrics to assign a qualitative state to the current”; Paragraph [0022] “the database 104 also stores or maintains historical deal data 118 that includes […] average price per unit, median price per unit […] the historical deal data 118 may be utilized by the price guidance application 128 to qualitatively analyze quotes”; Paragraph [0026] “the pricing model 116 may be configured to calculate a per unit price”; Paragraph [0023] “the database 104 also includes a dashboard table 130 that maintains one or more dashboard GUI displays and one or more report visualizations associated therewith for graphically depicting the qualitative or quantitative performance associated with closed quotes or deals,”; el. 210 and 212 of Fig. 2; Examiner notes the unit prices presumed by the pricing model 116 is compared to the historical unit prices to determine if the quote provided by the salesman is high or low quality. Paragraphs [0051] and [0022] quoted above shows the estimated unit prices’ involvement in the model generation.; Paragraph [0011] “A salesperson may utilize the expected pricing information to reliably identify or determine which attributes of the quote may be adjusted to achieve a desired outcome”)
Boren does not teach:
a presumption model using a neural network;
However, Rattner teaches:
a presumption model using a neural network; (Paragraph [0080] “The AI algorithms may include […] neural networks” of Rattner);
This operation of Rattner is applicable to the system of Boren as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to developing an estimate for a service/product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the presumption model to incorporate a neural network as taught by Rattner. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boren in order to generate interactive quotes for cost estimates using machine learning models (see Abstract of Rattner).
Regarding claim 2, Boren in view of Rattner teaches the estimate presumption apparatus according to claim 1. Boren further teaches:
wherein the data directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies includes item names of items directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices and input data corresponding to the item names of the items directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices; (Paragraph [0022] “the database 104 also stores or maintains historical deal data 118 that includes […] average quantity, median quantity”; Paragraph [0018] “the database 104 stores or otherwise maintains application objects (e.g., an application object type) where the application object table 110 includes columns or fields”; Paragraph [0019] explains the object table 110 has records/entries and values.) and
the data not directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices of the estimate replies includes item names of items not directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices and input data corresponding to the item names of the items not directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices. (Paragraph [0025] “one or more database objects 110 associated with the customer or client associated with the quote may be utilized to obtain a geographic region, a tier, an industry sector, and/or other attributes associated with that particular customer or client.”)
Regarding claim 3, Boren in view of Rattner teaches the estimate presumption apparatus according to claim 2. Boren further teaches:
wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to perform preprocessing for digitizing the item names of the items directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices, the item names of the items not directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices, and the input data corresponding to the item names of the items not directly related to the calculation of the estimated unit prices. (Paragraph [0068] “one or more processing systems or devices can carry out the described operations, tasks, and functions by manipulating electrical signals representing data bits at accessible memory locations,”; Paragraphs [0025] and [0022] explains that the various data claimed is stored in a database.)
Regarding claim 5, Boren in view of Rattner teaches the estimate presumption apparatus according to claim 3. Boren further teaches:
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to calculate importance coefficients each indicating how much influence data corresponding to one of the items gives on presuming the unit price when generating the presumption model. (Paragraph [0027] “Using the respective weightings assigned to those attributes by the expected pricing model, the price guidance application 128 may calculate an expected discount percentage for the current quote based on the user-defined quantity associated with the quote and the tier associated with the current customer or client”)
Regarding claim 7, Boren in view of Rattner teaches the estimate presumption apparatus according to claim 1. Boren further teaches:
wherein, when generating the presumption model, the one or more hardware processors select items that are bases for presuming the unit price and calculates a standard unit price for each of the selected items. (Paragraph [0021] “a price guidance application 128 on a server 102 may […] determine which combination of attributes or variables of historical quotes […] are correlated to or predictive of the resulting price associated with those deals, and then determine a corresponding equation, function, or model for calculating the expected price for that particular product (or combination of products) based on that set of input variables.”; Paragraph [0026] “the pricing model 116 may be configured to calculate a per unit price”)
Regarding claim 8, Boren in view of Rattner teaches the estimate presumption apparatus according to claim 1. Boren further teaches:
wherein the presumption model generation unit generates the presumption model for each product/part and stores a plurality of presumption models generated into a storage device as a presumption model group. (Paragraph [0021] “the database 104 stores or maintains pricing models 116 […] a price guidance application 128 on a server 102 may […] determine a corresponding equation, function, or model for calculating the expected price for that particular product (or combination of products) based on that set of input variables.”; Paragraph [0026] “the price guidance application 128 which accesses the database 104 to obtain the appropriate pricing model 116 associated with the particular product(s) associated with the quote.”)
Claim 9:
Claim(s) 9 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 9 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards an apparatus. Claim(s) 9 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1.
Claim 10:
Claim(s) 10 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim(s) 10 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards an apparatus. Claim(s) 10 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1. Claim 10 further recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium including programmed instructions” (see Paragraph [0058] “non-transitory short or long-term storage or other computer-readable media capable of storing programming instructions” of Boren).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Boren (US 20200134683 A1) in view of Rattner (US 20190244267 A1), in further view of Shishido (US 20120130848 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Boren in view of Rattner discloses the estimate presumption apparatus according to claim 5. Boren in view of Rattner does not teach:
wherein the one or more hardware processors search for a similar product that is similar to the product/part, based on similarity degrees of items, the importance coefficients of which are high, and/or similarity degrees of the importance coefficients.
However, Shishido teaches:
wherein the one or more hardware processors search for a similar product that is similar to the product/part, based on similarity degrees of items, the importance coefficients of which are high, and/or similarity degrees of the importance coefficients. (Paragraph [0103] “the first rate calculating section 105 makes a first set being a set of items having high degrees of similarity with the base item.” of Shishido)
This operation of Shishido is applicable to the system of Boren as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to generating information about items desired by a user for commerce purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Boren to incorporate searching for a similar product that is similar to the product/part, based on similarity degrees of items as taught by Shishido. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boren in order to provide associated item information which closely relates to a certain or specified item (see paragraph [0033] of Shishido).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boren (US 20200134683 A1) in view of Rattner (US 20190244267 A1), in further view of Dray (see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 11, Boren in view of Rattner teaches the estimate presumption apparatus according to claim 1. Boren further teaches:
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to calculate importance coefficients each indicating how much influence data corresponding to one of the items gives on presuming the unit price when generating the presumption model, (Paragraph [0027] “Using the respective weightings assigned to those attributes by the expected pricing model, the price guidance application 128 may calculate an expected discount percentage for the current quote based on the user-defined quantity associated with the quote and the tier associated with the current customer or client”)
Boren in view of Rattner does not teach:
importance coefficients each indicating how much influence data gives on presuming the price, the importance coefficients including: a machine size and a material manufacturer.
However Dray teaches:
importance coefficients each indicating how much influence data gives on presuming the price, the importance coefficients including: a machine size and a material manufacturer. (Page 6 “These profitability improvements will be different for each molder and each machine, and are dependent on machine size, […] plant burden” of Dray)
This operation of Dray is applicable to the system of Boren as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to determining the cost of a product. Boren is directed towards determining the costs of various products/services using historic price and quantity data (see Paragraph [0021] and [0027] of Boren) and Dray is directed to determining the costs of injection molding using machine size and material manufacturer data (see Page 6 of Dray). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted the importance coefficients from Boren with the machine size and material manufacturer of Dray, since both coefficients are being used to adjust the cost of a good/service. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the importance coefficients of Boren with the importance coefficients of Dray. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 12:
Claim(s) 12 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 12 recites limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 11, which are directed towards an apparatus. Claim(s) 12 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 11.
Claim 13:
Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim(s) 13 recites limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 11, which are directed towards an apparatus. Claim(s) 13 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 11. Claim 13 further recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium including programmed instructions” (see Paragraph [0058] “non-transitory short or long-term storage or other computer-readable media capable of storing programming instructions” of Boren).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boren (US 20200134683 A1) in view of Rattner (US 20190244267 A1), in further view of Joint Agency Cost Estimating Relationship (CER) Development Handbook, herein referred to as Thomas (see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 14, Boren in view of Rattner teaches the estimate presumption apparatus according to claim 1. Boren further teaches:
wherein the analysis report includes (Paragraph [0032] “the quote guidance process 200 also calculates or otherwise determines a qualitative assessment of the current quote based on the historical deal data and provides graphical indicia of the qualitative assessment of the current quote (tasks 210, 212). In this regard, the current quote may be scored or otherwise compared to the historical deal data 118 and the various historical deal metrics to assign a qualitative state to the current”; Paragraph [0022] “the database 104 also stores or maintains historical deal data 118 that includes […] average price per unit, median price per unit […] the historical deal data 118 may be utilized by the price guidance application 128 to qualitatively analyze quotes”; Paragraph [0026] “the pricing model 116 may be configured to calculate a per unit price”; Paragraph [0023] “the database 104 also includes a dashboard table 130 that maintains one or more dashboard GUI displays and one or more report visualizations associated therewith for graphically depicting the qualitative or quantitative performance associated with closed quotes or deals,”; el. 210 and 212 of Fig. 2)
Boren in view of Rattner does not teach:
wherein the analysis report includes a graph having a first axis indicating the prices presumed and a second axis indicating the estimated prices.
However, Thomas teaches:
wherein the analysis report includes a graph having a first axis indicating the prices presumed and a second axis indicating the estimated prices. (Page 72 “Figure 29 shows a scatter plot with the Actual Cost on the x-axis and Predicted Cost on the y-axis”; Figure 29 on page 73 of Thomas)
This operation of Thomas is applicable to the system of Boren as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to analyzing the cost of a goods/service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the analysis report of Boren to incorporate a graph with the prices presumed and the estimated prices as taught by Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boren in order to develop cost estimates from historical data (see Page 11 of Thomas).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page(s) 7, filed 6 November 2025, with respect to the claim objection of claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendment of claim 14. The claim objection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 8-9, filed 6 November 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1) the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity and 2) the claims are directed towards a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea because they were further amended to recites “the estimate unit prices being newly received from the supplier and [not] used to generate the presumption model”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. recites:
Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
“The estimate unit prices being newly received from the supplier and [not] used to generate the presumption model” describes a person (i.e. supplier) interacting with a computer to transmit information. This is a single person performing a certain activity between a person and a computer which falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. Therefore, the amendments still recite an abstract idea.
The Applicant further argues the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity because the use of the neural network is not a method of organizing human activity. USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. As noted in the above 101 rejection, generating a presumption model using a neural network is not part of the abstract idea, and is an additional element. Additional elements are analyzed in step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test for eligibility, not step 2A, prong 1. Beyond the additional elements, the claims are directed towards presuming an estimate, which is a commercial interaction (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Therefore, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea.
The Applicant also argues that the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity because the claims recite “displaying the analysis report on a display device”. “Displaying the analysis report” is an abstract idea, but the display device is an additional element, which is analyzed in step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test for eligibility. Displaying the analysis report is an abstract idea because it recites a commercial interaction. Paragraph [0020] of the instant specification recites “The procurement analysis unit PA can generate an analysis report, such as the number of estimates, results of estimates, and various evaluations, for each supplier related to each buyer based on estimate record information ERI, for example.” The analysis report is being displayed to give a person information about a financial estimate. A financial estimate is a commercial interaction (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II). Therefore, displaying the analysis report is a method of organizing human activity.
Regarding argument 2, the Applicant argues the claims are directed towards a practical application because the analysis report being displayed on a display device causes an improvement to technology. As described in argument 1, the analysis report being displayed is an abstract idea. The display device is an additional element, but the device is merely being applied to the abstract idea. As claimed, the displaying of the analysis report is being done at a high level in a way no different than the way a human would perform the displaying. For example, a human and a computer would both use the variety of data from the supplier as described by the claims to presume a unit price and then display the results to the buyer. MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claimed improvement of more easily finding an abnormal estimate reply is inherent with applying a generic computer to the abstract idea because it would happen with the addition of any generic computer. A particular technology is not necessary to provide the improvement.
The improvements described in the specification such as finding an abnormal estimate reply and finding products/parts for which cost reduction is to be intended are abstract ideas. Since the displaying of the analysis report does not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. Therefore, the invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 9-12, filed 6 November 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited prior art, Boren does not teach the claims as amended. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues Boren does not disclose generating a report allowing the buyer to evaluate a relationship between a presumed price and a supplier’s quote. Paragraph [0032] of Boren recites:
In exemplary embodiments, the quote guidance process 200 also calculates or otherwise determines a qualitative assessment of the current quote based on the historical deal data and provides graphical indicia of the qualitative assessment of the current quote (tasks 210, 212). In this regard, the current quote may be scored or otherwise compared to the historical deal data 118 and the various historical deal metrics to assign a qualitative state to the current quote that may be utilized to provide reactive guidance as the user modified aspects of the quote. For example, the current quote may be classified into one of multiple different qualitative categories based on one or more current quote attributes.
Paragraph [0032] of Boren shows that a report is made showing how a current quote (i.e. a presumed price) compares to historical deal data (which includes an estimate unit price of an estimate reply; see paragraph [0022] of Boren). This deal data is determined and input by a salesperson (see Paragraph [0011] of Boren). Therefore, the historical deal data is received from supplier. Examiner further notes the 112(a) and 112(b) issues as described above have let to the Examiner interpreting the claims as best understood by the specification. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Boren teaches a presumed price being evaluated against a supplier’s quote as claimed by the amended limitations.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 12-13, filed 6 November 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues cited prior art Shishido does not disclose a search for a past product similar to the product/part, the estimated price of which is to be evaluated, that is performed based on similarity degrees of items, the importance coefficients of which are high, and/or similarity degrees of the importance coefficients. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a past product and the estimated prices of which is to be evaluated) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the Boren in view of Rattner in further view of Shishido teaches the invention as claimed by claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on (571)270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628