DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 5/11/26, wherein:
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 10 are currently pending.
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 .
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, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a device and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 9 and 10 recite a method and a computer readable storage medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
calculate environmental loads regarding an order subject to a negotiation conducted by a first negotiator with a second negotiator;
identify, based on component information indicating relations between products and device components and environmental load information regarding the environmental loads of the device components, environmental loads for respective device components constituting products subject to the order;
calculate the environmental loads regarding the order based on a sum of the environmental loads for the respective device components;
generate an offer edit screen image displaying a proposal regarding the order based on the environmental loads, the offer edit screen image comprising at least one graphical user interface (GUI) button; and
if a degree of the environmental loads of the proposal is higher than a threshold value, exclude the proposal from a target of notification to the second negotiator.
These limitations constitute determining information and generating an offer based on the information, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 10 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a memory and a processor, claim 9 recites a computer (in the preamble), and claim 10 recites a non-transitory storage medium, and claims 1, 9, and 10 recite at least one graphical user interface (GUI) button, all of which are considered computer components. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do 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 of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-7 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Notice
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoury (US 20230015284), in view of Bellowe (US 20170351978).
Referring to claim 1:
Khoury discloses a negotiation device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to {Khoury [0007][0016][0030][0191]; An electronic device that provides recommendation information is described. This electronic device includes: an interface circuit, a processor, and memory storing program instructions [0007]}:
calculate environmental loads regarding an order subject to a negotiation conducted by a first negotiator with a second negotiator {Khoury [0038] [0041]; computer system 130 may dynamically compute the carbon footprint associated with single type of transportation based at least in part on the environmental factors, personal factors and/or the itinerary information [0041] where the user’s desired itinerary is the order and the user and the computer system 130 are the negotiators};
identify, based on component information indicating relations between products and device components and environmental load information regarding the environmental loads of the device components, environmental loads for respective components constituting products subject to the order {Khoury [0040][0041]; computer system 130 may dynamically compute the carbon footprint associated with single type of transportation based at least in part on the environmental factors, personal factors and/or the itinerary information [0041] where the itinerary is the product, which is made up of the device components, such as a flight (airplane) or a flight and drive (airplane and vehicle) and computer system 130 may determine or access additional information, such as one or more environmental factors, based at least in part on the itinerary information. For example, the environmental factors may include: aircraft loading, weather (including current, near-term predictions and/or historical weather patterns), historical chances of delays, vehicle types, aircraft types and engines, actual or predicted freight loads on aircraft or other transport, the likelihood of flight cancellation as a function of the number of passengers on that flight, the departure airport or the time of day, etc. [0040]},
calculate the environmental loads regarding the order based on a sum of the environmental loads for the respective components {Khoury [0040] [0041]; computer system 130 may compare an itinerary that includes a non-stop flight between the origin and destination with an itinerary that includes a flight into a nearby airport and subsequent driving to the destination. The emissions of the air routes in both itineraries may be calculated similarly, but in the case of the second itinerary there would be the emissions from the driving leg [0041]}
generate an offer edit screen image displaying a proposal regarding the order based on the environmental loads {Khoury [0045]-[0048]; computer system 130 may dynamically compute or select an itinerary recommendation based at least in part on the environmental factors, the itinerary information, and/or the personal information [0045] and After receiving the recommendation information, electronic device 110-1 may present the recommendation information to the individual in a user interface [0047]}; and
if a degree of the environmental loads of the proposal is higher than a threshold value, exclude the proposal from a target of notification to the second negotiator {Khoury [0156]; If the user wants to ensure that their itineraries meet a certain carbon footprint, they can drag a slider on the colored range that indicates CO.sub.2 emissions and flights releasing more CO.sub.2 may either disappear or may be deemphasized [0156]}.
Khoury discloses a system for comparison of carbon footprints across different transportation options (abstract). Khoury does not explicitly disclose the offer edit screen image comprising at least one graphical user interface (GUI) button.
However, Bellowe discloses a similar system for generating recommendations to users based on carbon impact (abstract). Bellowe discloses the offer edit screen image comprising at least one graphical user interface (GUI) button {Bellowe [0078][0080]; the user selects the Calculate Trip's Footprint button 820 [0078]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Khoury to incorporate at least one GUI button as taught by Bellowe because this would provide a manner for allowing the user to select desired calculations (Bellowe [0078]), thus aiding the user by providing options.
Referring to claim 3:
Khoury discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to notify the second negotiator of the proposal with an indication of an index value indicating the environmental loads {Khoury [0038]; These capabilities may help individuals choose suitable itineraries by determining and/or estimating CO2 equivalent emissions for various types of travel options [0038]}.
Referring to claim 4:
Khoury discloses wherein the proposal includes terms and conditions specifying a transportation means, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate the environmental loads in accordance with the transportation means {Khoury [0038][0041] [0045]-[0047]; For example, computer system 130 may compare an itinerary that includes a non-stop flight between the origin and destination with an itinerary that includes a flight into a nearby airport and subsequent driving to the destination [0041]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Khoury discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, upon receiving an alternative proposal other than the proposal from the second negotiator, determine whether or not to agree on the alternative proposal based on environmental loads regarding the alternative proposal {Khoury [0045]; computer system 130 may dynamically compute or select an itinerary recommendation based at least in part on the environmental factors, the itinerary information, and/or the personal information [0045]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Khoury discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate the environmental loads regarding the alternative proposal and determine whether or not to agree on the alternative proposal based on the calculated environmental loads regarding the alternative proposal {Khoury [0040][0041][0045]-[0047]; computer system 130 may compare an itinerary that includes a non-stop flight between the origin and destination with an itinerary that includes a flight into a nearby airport and subsequent driving to the destination. The emissions of the air routes in both itineraries may be calculated similarly, but in the case of the second itinerary there would be the emissions from the driving leg [0041]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Khoury discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate utilities of respective proposals regarding the order based on environmental loads of the respective proposals, and select, based on the utilities, the proposal for notifying the second negotiator from the respective proposals {Khoury [0048][0060][0071][0130]; In some embodiments, computer system 130 may present different itinerary recommendations in list form. . . For example, computer system 130 may include in the list one option that is the cheapest, one option that has the least emissions, one option that is shortest, one option that leaves early in the day, and one option that leaves late in the day [0048] where the at least the cost is considered a factor in utility, in accordance with Applicant’s Specification ¶68}.
Referring to claim 9:
Claim 9 is similar to claim 1 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 10:
Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Response to Arguments
Statement of Substance of Interview
Examiner has no comment on Applicant’s statement of the Interview held on May 5, 2026. Examiner notes that an Interview Summary is provided in the record dated May 7, 2026.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
A. Prong Two of Step 2A
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a technical improvement by generating an offer edit screen image including GUI buttons, and thus provides an improvement to the field of negotiation devices. Remarks 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Negotiation devices are not considered a technical field. There is no technical improvement provided by generating a display screen which includes GUI buttons.
B. Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea, because the claim, when considered as a whole, recites a “technical solution” as described above. Remarks 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not provide any reasoning as to what the claims as a whole provide that has not already been considered.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102/103
Applicant argues that Khoury does not disclose “device components” or “generate an offer edit screen image . . . comprising at least one graphical user interface (GUI) button.” Remarks 11-12. These are amended limitations, which are addressed in the rejection (see above).
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights