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 . The following is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-8 are rejected below.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Applicant’s Arguments
Objections to Claim 8 are withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues because of the addition of the machine learning models the claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind nor recite certain methods of organizing human activity and do not recite a judicial exception.
Examiner responds the limitations within the abstract idea can still be practically performed in the human mind and manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The additional elements of the machine learning models generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h) without improving associated technology.
Applicant argues because of the addition of the machine learning models the claims are integrated into a practical application, and are not well understood routine and conventional.
Examiner respond as stated above the recited machine learning models generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h) without improving associated technology. Based on 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance Advanced module, Slide 38, Step2B–Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-8 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Based on a facial reading of the claim elements, claims 1-8 fall within a statutory class of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, the claims recite an abstract idea. Claim 1 and 7-8 includes limitations reciting functionality that trades agricultural products between producers and purchasers, including:
Acquiring a predicted production quantity of an agricultural product...for each producer...
Acquiring a predicted demand for the agricultural product... for each purchaser
Performing matching between the predicted production quantity of each producer and the predicted demand...
In the matching step, when the predicted production quantity of the first producer and the predicted demand quantity of the first purchaser do not match... associating the first purchaser and the first producer when an approval for the change request is received from the first purchaser
which describe Mental Processes because the steps amount to no more than performing observations or evaluations or judgments that can be practically performed in the mind.
Certain methods of organizing human activity – because managing trading between producers and purchasers manages personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions);
Similarly, in claims 2-6, the limitations further describe Mental Processes and Certain methods of organizing human activity. As a result, claims 1-8 recite an abstract idea, under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 7-8 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include transaction system, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, computer, acquisition units, control unit, notification unit. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because, these are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
With respect to the machine learning models-these generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h) without improving the associated technology.
With respect to the notification step, and transmitting a change request these limitations are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extra solution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 2-6 do not include additional elements beyond those from Claims 1, 7, and 8
As a result, 1-8 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, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1, and 7-8 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include transaction system, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, computer, acquisition units, control unit, notification unit. Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or recite generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
With respect to the machine learning models- these generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h) without improving the associated technology.
With respect to the notification step and transmitting a change request these limitations are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and these limitations are equivalent to receiving/transmitting data and are well-understood routine and conventional which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-6, do not include additional elements beyond those from Claims 1 and 7-8
As a result, Claims 1-8 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 3--8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachu (20110208636) in view of Tatge (20040024648) in view of Friend (20010032165) in view of Marshak (20170109776)
Regarding Claim 1, Bachu discloses:
A transaction method for trading agricultural products between producers and purchasers executed by a transaction system, the transaction method comprising (0003-0007 – method/system/CRM, instructions, processor)
a production quantity acquisition step of acquiring a predicted production quantity of an agricultural product on a predetermined future day range for each producer; (0060- The seller criteria may include categories such as, but is not limited to, a yield from an area of land used to produce the agricultural commodity, a size of the area of land used to produce the commodity, a sales quantity, a location at which to sell the agricultural commodity, and a deadline by which to transact.
[0054] ...a deadline to transact (224) identifies an amount of time within which the entity is willing to transact. The deadline to transact (224) may be a day and/or time. The deadline to transact (224) may also be a start day/time and an end day/time, in the event that the entity wants to submit criteria for a future time
a demand acquisition step of acquiring a predicted demand for the agricultural product on the predetermined day range for each purchaser; (Abstract - receiving buyer criteria (e.g., purchase quantity, buyer price, transaction location at which to buy the agricultural commodity) sent from a mobile device used by a primary and secondary buyer.
0058-The buyer criteria may include categories such as, but is not limited to, a purchase quantity of an agricultural commodity, a buyer price of an agricultural commodity, and a deadline by which to transact.
[0054] ...a deadline to transact (224) identifies an amount of time within which the entity is willing to transact. The deadline to transact (224) may be a day and/or time. The deadline to transact (224) may also be a start day/time and an end day/time, in the event that the entity wants to submit criteria for a future time
a matching step of performing matching between the predicted production quantity of each producer and the predicted demand of each purchaser; wherein the matching is performed in a manner that minimizes a physical delivery distance between each producer and a delivery destination; (Abstract - The method further involves matching, within a predetermined period of time after receiving the buyer criteria and the seller criteria, the primary and secondary buyer with the seller; 0057 – the match based on “distance willing to travel” criteria is limiting the distance)
and a notification step of notifying a producer for which the matching has been established of the delivery destination desired by a purchaser for which the matching has been established, information of the agricultural product to be delivered, and the predetermined day range, wherein: [0073] In step 406, the buyer criteria for the primary buyer and the secondary buyer are received by a seller on a seller mobile device;
Abstract - receiving buyer criteria (e.g., purchase quantity, buyer price, transaction location at which to buy the agricultural commodity) sent from a mobile device used by a primary and secondary buyer.
0058-The buyer criteria may include categories such as, but is not limited to, a purchase quantity of an agricultural commodity, a buyer price of an agricultural commodity, and a deadline by which to transact.;
0054- The deadline to transact (224) may also be a start day/time and an end day/time, in the event that the entity wants to submit criteria for a future time) Bachu does not explicitly state the predetermined future day range is a predetermined date (ie. day). Tatge discloses this limitation (0017-Bid data typically includes the bid price, quantity desired, and point of delivery and, optionally, other relevant data. Of course, relevant data will vary depending on the commodity. Examples of relevant data include, but are not limited to, quantity sought, quality, delivery date, and delivery place etc. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sachu’s day range to include Tatge’s delivery date, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Bachu does not explicitly state: wherein: in the matching step, when the predicted production quantity of the first producer and the predicted demand quantity of the first purchaser do not match: transmitting a change request to the first purchaser so that the predicted demand quantity of the first purchaser matches the predicted production quantity of the first producer and associating the first purchaser and the first producer when an approval for the change request is received from the first purchaser.
Friend discloses a negotiation/counteroffer process where buyers and sellers change an original offer quantity (predicted demand quantity and production quantity do not match and transmitting a change request) until both parties mutually accept terms (associating the first purchaser and the first producer when an approval for the change request is received from the first purchaser) [0098] Once offers and/or requests have been posted and are active on the system, buyers and sellers are able to negotiate with one another in order to establish perhaps a different or better price for an item, or a different quantity, availability date, or adjunct terms and conditions. During the negotiation process, both the potential buyer and the seller control whether the commodity, product, service or transportation will be purchased, since both parties must mutually accept the terms of the offer before a transaction is effected. Through the negotiation process, buyers and sellers respond to offers to sell and requests for quote by either accepting the original offer as is, or by submitting one or more counteroffers to the other party which modify the original posting terms. At each stage of the negotiation process, the system notifies the potential buyer and seller via e-mail, of any actions taken by the other party. In addition to the usual terms and conditions of the transaction, such as subprice, quantity and the like, the buyer and seller may also develop various payment terms and payment methodologies during the negotiation process. In this regard, special terms and conditions are captured by the negotiation process and are available for transfer to an escrow-type agency as escrow conditions, if such a payment methodology is selected by the parties. Once both parties accept an offer, the transaction is effected, and the trading platform system automatically generates a sale order of the transaction for the seller and a purchase order for the buyer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Friend’s negotiation/counteroffer (change request and approval) to Sachu’s in view of Tatge’s matching step, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Bachu does not explicitly state a different machine learning model is used for the producer and purchaser, respectively, Manchuk discloses different machine learning models making a prediction for each user [0053] In some embodiments, the system 200 builds a model of likely user behavior for each user of a plurality of users. The model may be based on large amount of data that is collected concerning the user; the data may be any data used to create or populate user profiles. In some embodiments, parallel algorithms are used to build a behavior model rapidly for each user. The model may generate predictions based on past user behavior. [0061] The system may use machine-learning algorithms to determine the user's likely behavior for the model. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Manchuk’s machine learning models to Bachu’s in view of Tatge’s in view of Friend’s producer and purchaser, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 3, Bachu discloses: The transaction method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of a delivery distance from each producer to the delivery destination, a cost required for delivery, or energy consumed by delivery is acquired, and (0057 - a distance willing to travel is part of registration information)
in the matching step, matching between a predicted production quantity of each producer and a predicted demand of each purchaser on the predetermined date is performed on condition that at least one of the cost required for delivery, or the energy consumed by delivery is minimized. (0082 –a seller may decide, for purposes of the present transaction, to change his distance willing to travel from 50 km to 25 km because of rising fuel costs or because of a vehicle being out of service.)
Regarding Claim 4, Bachu discloses: The transaction method according to claim 1, Bachu does not explicitly state: Friend discloses: further comprising. a process availability information acquisition of acquiring process availability information indicating whether the producer is capable of performing process processing on the agricultural product; and a desired process information acquisition step of acquiring desired process information indicating whether the purchaser wants the agricultural product to be processed, wherein in the matching step, matching is performed based on the process availability information and the desired process information. 0088- .....In order to satisfy requirements of various agricultural purchasers, the offer posting also includes data fields in which dates may be entered that indicate when a particular agricultural commodity was packed, when it was processed (if applicable) and/or when that commodity was warehoused.... 0098 - During the negotiation process, both the potential buyer and the seller control whether the commodity, product, service or transportation will be purchased, since both parties must mutually accept the terms of the offer before a transaction is effected. Through the negotiation process, buyers and sellers respond to offers to sell and requests for quote by either accepting the original offer as is, or by submitting one or more counteroffers to the other party which modify the original posting terms. At each stage of the negotiation process, the system notifies the potential buyer and seller via e-mail, of any actions taken by the other party. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Friend’s process availability information and desired process information to Bachu’s in view of Tatge’s matching, helping satisfy purchaser’s requirements such as “when a particular agricultural commodity was packed, when it was processed (if applicable) and/or when that commodity was warehoused” (0088)
Regarding Claim 5, Bachu discloses: The transaction method according to claim 1 further comprising: a process processing notification step of notifying a process processing unit that processing the agricultural product of information regarding process processing in a case where the purchaser wants the agricultural product to be processed, the agricultural product being delivered from the producer for which the matching has been established. [0106] Further, the method and system described above may be modified to include third parties that may be involved in the transaction. For example, a logistics provider (e.g., a transportation services company) may be able to offer pricing for its services to a buyer and/or seller to deliver an agricultural commodity from one location to another location. Likewise, a buyer and/or seller may communicate with the logistics provider to reach an agreement regarding the transportation of an agricultural commodity. Other third parties, including (but not limited to) crop dusters, planting services, and harvesting services, may also be included in the method and system described above.
Regarding Claim 6, Bachu discloses: The transaction method according to claim 1, Bachu does not explicitly state: Marshak discloses: further comprising: a shelving suggestion step of suggesting shelving for increasing a demand of the purchaser in a case where the predicted production quantity is larger than the predicted demand. (Abstract - A method for generation of dynamically priced discount offers for perishable inventory to vendor-selected customer segments includes conveying, by a vendor client device on the premises of a vendor, to a server, a first message identifying an oversupply of perishable inventory. The method includes directly transmitting, by local transmitter coupled to the vendor client device, to a local receiver coupled to a customer client device, a second message identifying the vendor client device. The method includes receiving, by the vendor client device, from the customer client device, a third message redeeming a discount at the vendor.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bachu’s in view of Tage’s in view of Friend’s production and demand acquisition to include Marshak’s suggesting shelving when production exceeds demand, “enabling a vendor target users likely to bring in desirable business before perishable inventory expires” (0004)
Claims 7-8 stand rejected based on the same citations and rationale as Claim 1.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachu (20110208636) in view of Tatge in view of Friend in view of Marshak in view of Li (20150379596)
Regarding Claim 2, Bachu discloses: The transaction method according to claim 1, further comprising: a price presentation step of presenting purchase prices for the agricultural product by the purchasers, wherein in the matching step, in a case where there are predicted demands of a plurality of purchasers which are matched with a predicted production quantity of one producer, the producer is matched with a purchaser who has presented a “best” purchase price among the plurality of purchasers. [0090] Returning to FIG. 5B and continuing with the example, once the central server (532) has received criteria from Kevin Moore (526), and all of the buyers, including Randy Coakley (528), and John Fogarty (530), the central server (530) sends several text messages to Kevin Moore's cell phone (534) in SMS format. The text messages sent by the central server (532) contain bid information from one or more buyers. In this example, as shown in FIG. 9A, the Kevin Moore cell phone (910), as shown on the cell phone display (915), receives bids from four different buyers. After receiving the bids, Kevin Moore evaluates each of the bids to determine which he should pursue. In addition to the pricing and purchase quantity, the seller may also consider other factors, such as the cost associated with delivering the agricultural commodity to the buyer's respective location. The bids (i.e., buyer prices) received from the buyers may be indicative, as shown in FIG. 9A, or they may be firm (i.e., binding) bids.
[0092] Once the seller determines the best buyer price based on the criteria received from each of the buyers on the cell phone, the seller contacts the buyer with the best buyer price using the contact information provided by that buyer.
Bachu does not explicitly state: Li discloses: the best price is the “highest price” [0005] An alternative to the marketplace is the auction house, such as Sotheby's. Here, individual items are presented by a seller to a number of interested buyers, and the buyers may bid for an item they wish to acquire. The seller selects the buyer based on certain criteria (the highest bid, the best credit, etc.) and the transaction concludes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sachu’s in view of Tatge’s in view of Friend’s in view of Marshak’s bids to include Li’s highest bid, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
201
1192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT ROSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
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, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623