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 Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 06/25/2024.
The effective filing date of the present application is 12/28/2021.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, and 11 – 18, are pending; claims 6, 8, and 10, being presently cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, and 11 – 18, 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 method 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 a method to evaluate and compare offers and accept, or not accept, a current offer based on the evaluations. Evaluating the offers includes mathematical calculations for generating probability distributions and computing expected utility. These mathematical calculations, possibly done by pen and paper, assist to evaluate the terms of offers (proposal times and lengths), and judging and evaluating the computed utility. The method set forth, therefore, describes a mental process. This mental process 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:
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 a negotiation, a maximum length of time of a period of the negotiation being fixed in advance;
generating a probability distribution of a number of future offers based on a length of time of a remaining period of the negotiation 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; and
determining whether or not to accept the current offer based on the expected utility of future offers and the utility of the current offer.
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 – 5 and 11 – 18 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, Gaussian distributions, and a plurality of opponents, further define the terms of offers, and are refinements of the mathematical calculations used to evaluate 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, see MPEP 2106.04)(d).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, and 11 – 18, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Claims Distinguished over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9, prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Cited prior art discloses automated negotiation, (Ozonat) and methods and systems for negotiating over a network (Ong and Ruan). The cited NPL discusses online negotiation. However, the Examiner points to the recited combinations of elements that are not taught or suggested by the cited prior art of record within claims 1, 7, and 9.
Specifically:
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 a negotiation,
generating a probability distribution of a number of future offers based on a length of time of a remaining period of the negotiation 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; and
determining whether or not to accept the current offer based on the expected utility of future offers and the utility of the current offer.
Claims 2 – 5, and 11 – 18, based on their dependency to claims 1, 7, and 9, and containing further limiting recitations, are also not disclosed by prior art. Accordingly, claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, and 11 – 18, are distinguished over prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
The Examiner also refers to SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which details; “[n]or is it enough for subject matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novel- SAP AMERICA, INC. v. INVESTPIC, LLC 3 ty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Batachia teaches negotiations using intelligent agents. Bigus details an intelligent agent with negotiation capability. Cotton discloses an apparatus and method for online negotiation. Ettinger discusses an automated offer-based negotiation system and method. Etzoni teaches performing predictive pricing based on historical data. Mitsuoka details automated negotiation. Moldovan discusses a negotiation facilitating system with two automated negotiating agents. Ong discloses a method and system for negotiation. Ozonat teaches automated negotiation. Ruan details a negotiation platform in an online environment. Shmueli discloses a negotiating platform. The NPL discusses a computational model for online agent negotiation.
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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629