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
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 04/14/2026.
The effective filing date of the present application is 12/28/2021.
Claims 1 – 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16, are pending; claims 4 – 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18, having been previously or presently cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's remarks of 04/14/2026 have been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step One of analysis, the claims recite an apparatus and a method; therefore, the claims recite appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims set forth steps integral with negotiations, including, observing terms and times of offers, evaluating those terms and times, and evaluating and making opinions on utility (“how preferable the offer is”). Evaluating the offers includes mathematical calculations for generating probability distributions and computing expected utility. These mathematical calculations are essential in evaluating the terms of offers and are beyond merely being involved with the process. These steps – or method - therefore, describe a mental process and is considered an abstract idea.
Claim 7, which is illustrative of claims 1 and 9, contains the elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A negotiation method performed by a computer, comprising:
determining whether a negotiation period has expired, a maximum length of time of a period of the negotiation being fixed in advance;
when the negotiation period has not expired, determining whether a new offer has been received from an opponent agent;
when the new offer has not been received, returning to determining whether the negotiation period has expired;
when the new offer has been received, treating the new offer as a current offer;
acquiring history information that indicates a proposal time of a current offer from an opponent and a utility of each offer from the opponent that has been received in the negotiation;
generating a probability distribution of a number of future offers based on the remaining negotiation time and the proposal time of the current offer;
computing an expected utility of future offers based on the probability distribution of the number of future offers and the utilities indicated by the history information;
determining whether or not to accept the current offer based on the expected utility of future offers and the utility of the current offer;
when it is determined not to accept the current offer, returning to determining whether the negotiation period has expired and continue the negotiation; and
when it is determined to accept the current offer, terminating the negotiation;
wherein the computation of the expected utility of future offers comprises: generating a conditional expected utility function that takes the number of future offers as an input and outputs the expected utility of future offers with the condition that the number of future offers is represented by the input, the generation of the conditional expected utility function comprises:
computing a difference of the utility for each pair of the utilities adjacent to each other in time indicated by the history information;
applying the computed differences of the utility to Gaussian process regression to obtain Gaussian distributions of difference of the utility in future offers; and
computing the expected utility of each future offer based on the Gaussian distributions of difference of the utility in future offers;
wherein the negotiation is conducted with a plurality of the opponents,
wherein the expected utility of future offers is computed for each of the opponents, and wherein the determination of whether or not to accept the current offer includes:
determining an acceptance threshold using a maximum value of the expected utilities of future offers; and
determining to accept the current offer in the case where the utility of the current offer is larger than or equal to the acceptance threshold.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 recite the following additional elements:
at least one processor;
memory storing instructions; wherein the at least one processor is configured to
execute the instructions;
a computer;
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes
a computer to execute.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0026 and 0028] and Figure 3 as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (at least one processor; memory storing instructions; a computer; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 15 and 16, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1, 7, and 9. Recitations to number of offers, time of offers, utilities of offers and future offers, and probability distributions, further define the terms of offers, and are subtleties of the mathematical calculations integral to evaluating these terms. Further, they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claims are directed to the abstract idea, without integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first remarks as to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection for all previous claims, and argues that the claims, as amended, do not recite a mental process. See page 13. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant first points to amendments to claim 1 and argues that these technical features point to elements that do not recite a mental process. As Applicant notes, the amendments add method steps comprising: “computing a difference of the utility for each pair of the utilities adjacent to each other in time indicated by the history information; applying the computed differences of the utility to Gaussian process regression to obtain Gaussian distributions of difference of the utility in future offers," and "wherein the expected utility of future offers is computed for each of the opponents” are elements directed to steps integral with negotiations, including, observing terms and timing of offers, and evaluating (computing utility - “how preferable the offer is”). These steps are directed to the mental process identified and is considered an abstract idea.
As Applicant also notes, technical features may integrate an abstract idea into a practical application, but this must be performed by additional elements in the claims. As detailed above, the only additional elements identified include: (at least one processor; memory storing instructions; a computer; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program). These additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has broadly and generically described these computing elements in the disclosure, see Specification [0026 and 0028] and Figure 3. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). As also noted above, Applicant has added more elements that refine the mental process rather than improve the functioning of the apparatus claimed. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next points to SRI as describing similarly situated claims that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. See page 13. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The amended claims are reciting steps that can be performed in the human mind. They include:
determining whether a negotiation period has expired;
determining whether a new offer has been received from an opponent agent;
when the new offer has been received, treating the new offer as a current offer;
acquiring history information that indicates a proposal time of a current offer from an opponent and a utility of each offer from the opponent that has been received in the negotiation;
generating a probability distribution of a number of future offers based on the remaining negotiation time and the proposal time of the current offer;
computing an expected utility of future offers based on the probability distribution of the number of future offers and the utilities indicated by the history information;
determining whether or not to accept the current offer based on the expected utility of future offers and the utility of the current offer;
when it is determined not to accept the current offer, returning to determining whether the negotiation period has expired and continue the negotiation; and
when it is determined to accept the current offer, terminating the negotiation;
wherein the computation of the expected utility of future offers comprises: generating a conditional expected utility function that takes the number of future offers as an input and outputs the expected utility of future offers with the condition that the number of future offers is represented by the input, the generation of the conditional expected utility function comprises:
computing a difference of the utility for each pair of the utilities adjacent to each other in time indicated by the history information;
applying the computed differences of the utility to Gaussian process regression to obtain Gaussian distributions of difference of the utility in future offers; and
computing the expected utility of each future offer based on the Gaussian distributions of difference of the utility in future offers;
wherein the negotiation is conducted with a plurality of the opponents,
wherein the expected utility of future offers is computed for each of the opponents, and wherein the determination of whether or not to accept the current offer includes:
determining an acceptance threshold using a maximum value of the expected utilities of future offers; and
determining to accept the current offer in the case where the utility of the current offer is larger than or equal to the acceptance threshold.
Note that the above delineation includes most of amended claim 7. Thus, the Examiner has concluded – and detailed – those elements that may be performed by a human. Note also that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. Courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. Because the Examiner has concluded that the claims recite limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claims Distinguished over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9, prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Based upon amendments to the claims and updated research, the Examiner maintains the conclusion detailed within the Office Action filed 04/14/2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Blair discloses a method for and system for facilitating a negotiation. Burney discusses a method for negotiating online. Guo previously introduced a method and computer network for performing a negotiation. Ephrati discloses an electronic multilateral negotiation system. Zagorin details an electronic negotiation system.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights