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 communication is a First Office Action Non-Final on Merits.
Claims 1-12, 14-16 have been amended in a preliminary amendment filed on 04/03/2025.
Therefore, Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 10/13/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/JP2022/038197 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2025 and 01/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to an apparatus (i.e. a machine). Claims 13 and 14 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). Claims 15 and 16 are directed to a non-transitory storage medium (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: A negotiation comprising an agreement candidate proposal acquiring process for acquiring, in a negotiation with a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, a first agreement candidate proposal which is provided by the negotiation party and which includes a plurality of first deadlines; and a judging process for judging whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal.
Independent claim 13 recites: A negotiation method, comprising: acquiring, in a negotiation with a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, a first agreement candidate proposal which is provided by the negotiation party and which includes a plurality of first deadlines; and judging whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal.
Independent claim 15 recites: A program for causing to carry out: an agreement candidate proposal acquiring process for acquiring, in a negotiation with a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, a first agreement candidate proposal which is provided by the negotiation party and which includes a plurality of first deadlines; and a judging process for judging whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal. The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under the abstract groupings of: Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As the claims discuss negotiations between candidates and partners, for example, claim 1 discusses a negotiation comprising an agreement candidate proposal acquiring process for acquiring, in a negotiation with a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, a first agreement candidate proposal which is provided by the negotiation party and which includes a plurality of first deadlines; and a judging process for judging whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (claim 1 recites for example, “A negotiation comprising an agreement candidate proposal acquiring process for acquiring, in a negotiation with a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, a first agreement candidate proposal which is provided by the negotiation party and which includes a plurality of first deadlines; and a judging process for judging whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal.” Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of negotiation, acquiring, providing data and judging whether to agree, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations (as claim 6 recites: “comparison between first cumulative proposed quantities, which each are a sum of the first proposed quantities by a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines, and cumulative valid stock quantities of the product, which each are a cumulative valid stock quantity at the corresponding point in time in the target period”; claim 7 recites: “quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, ... comparison between first cumulative proposed quantities, which each are a sum of the first proposed quantities by a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines, and cumulative required quantities of the product, which each are a sum of required quantities of the product that are required by a corresponding point in time in the target period”; claim 9 recites: “cumulative valid stock quantities of the product which each are a cumulative valid stock quantity at a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines; and pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, which are planned before a start of the negotiation and which each are a sum of planned delivery quantities of the product to be delivered to the negotiation party by a corresponding point in time in the target period, to determine, as at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a point in time at which a corresponding one of the cumulative valid stock quantities falls below a corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, and determine, as one of the second proposed quantities that corresponds to the at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a quantity obtained by subtracting the corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities from the corresponding one of the cumulative valid stock quantities”; claim 10 recites “quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, the second agreement candidate proposal includes second proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of second deadlines, and in the agreement candidate proposal generating process, refers to: cumulative required quantities, which each are a sum of required quantities of the product that are required by a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines; and pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, which are planned before a start of the negotiation and which each are a sum of planned delivery quantities of the product to be delivered from the negotiation party by a corresponding point in time in the target period, to determine, as at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a point in time at which a corresponding one of the cumulative required quantities exceeds a corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, and determine, as one of the second proposed quantities that corresponds to the at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a quantity obtained by subtracting the corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities”). Further, dependent claims add additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) an agreement candidate proposal generating process for generating a second agreement candidate proposal which is to be provided to the negotiation party and which includes a plurality of second deadlines; and an agreement candidate proposal providing process for providing the negotiation party with the second agreement candidate proposal; (claim 3) wherein in the agreement candidate proposal acquiring process, displays the first agreement candidate proposal and the second agreement candidate proposal such that a comparison between the first agreement candidate proposal and the second agreement candidate proposal is possible; (Claim 4) the agreement candidate proposal generating process, based on an operation of editing the first agreement candidate proposal, the second agreement candidate proposal.
(claim 5) in the judging process, judges, based on a result of comparison between utility of the first agreement candidate proposal and utility of a second agreement candidate proposal to be provided to the negotiation party next, whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal; (claim 6) wherein the negotiation is a negotiation regarding an order for a product accepted from the negotiation party, the first agreement candidate proposal includes first proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, and in the judging process, judges based on a result of comparison between first cumulative proposed quantities, which each are a sum of the first proposed quantities by a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines, and cumulative valid stock quantities of the product, which each are a cumulative valid stock quantity at the corresponding point in time in the target period, whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal; (claim 7) wherein the negotiation is a negotiation regarding an order for a product placed with the negotiation party, the first agreement candidate proposal includes first proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, and in the judging process, judge, based on a result of comparison between first cumulative proposed quantities, which each are a sum of the first proposed quantities by a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines, and cumulative required quantities of the product, which each are a sum of required quantities of the product that are required by a corresponding point in time in the target period, whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal; (claim 8) wherein the negotiation is a negotiation with the negotiation party regarding acceptance or placement of an order for a product, and in the judging process, refers to a minimum safety stock quantity, a maximum safety stock quantity, a safety lead time, or a standard packing quantity of the product, or a combination of some or all thereof, to judge whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal; (claim 9) wherein the negotiation is a negotiation regarding an order for a product accepted from the negotiation party, the first agreement candidate proposal includes first proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, the second agreement candidate proposal includes second proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of second deadlines, and in the agreement candidate proposal generating process, refers to: cumulative valid stock quantities of the product which each are a cumulative valid stock quantity at a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines; and pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, which are planned before a start of the negotiation and which each are a sum of planned delivery quantities of the product to be delivered to the negotiation party by a corresponding point in time in the target period, to determine, as at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a point in time at which a corresponding one of the cumulative valid stock quantities falls below a corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, and determine, as one of the second proposed quantities that corresponds to the at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a quantity obtained by subtracting the corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities from the corresponding one of the cumulative valid stock quantities at the at least one of the plurality of second deadlines; (claim 10) wherein the negotiation is a negotiation regarding an order for a product placed with the negotiation party, the first agreement candidate proposal includes first proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, the second agreement candidate proposal includes second proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of second deadlines, and in the agreement candidate proposal generating process, refers to: cumulative required quantities, which each are a sum of required quantities of the product that are required by a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines; and pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, which are planned before a start of the negotiation and which each are a sum of planned delivery quantities of the product to be delivered from the negotiation party by a corresponding point in time in the target period, to determine, as at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a point in time at which a corresponding one of the cumulative required quantities exceeds a corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, and determine, as one of the second proposed quantities that corresponds to the at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a quantity obtained by subtracting the corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities from the corresponding one of the cumulative required quantities; (claim 11) wherein the negotiation is a negotiation with the negotiation party regarding acceptance or placement of an order for a product, and in the agreement candidate proposal generating process refers to a minimum safety stock, a maximum safety stock, a safety lead time, and a standard packing quantity of the product or a combination of some or all thereof, to generate the second agreement candidate proposal; (claim 12) an agreement candidate proposal generating process for generating, in a negotiation with the negotiation according to claim 1 as a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, the first agreement candidate proposal which is to be provided to the negotiation partlimitation of certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) apparatus, processor (claim 3) display equipment; (claim 13) computer; (claim 15) non-transitory storage medium, computer. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, claims 1-16 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2022/0292559 A1), hereinafter “Ando”, over KATAOKA (GB 2392761A), hereinafter “Kataoka”.
Regarding Claim 1, Ando teaches A negotiation apparatus, comprising at least one processor, the at least one processer carrying out: (See at least Ando, para 0110, teaches processor; Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source);
an agreement candidate proposal acquiring process for acquiring, in a negotiation with a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, a first agreement candidate proposal which is provided by the negotiation party and which includes a ...; and (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source who presents, to an order-receiving side that provides any product or service, an order proposal that represents a request for provision of the any product or service under predetermined negotiation conditions, includes: a planning unit 21 which prepares one or more negotiation candidates based on the predetermined negotiation conditions presented in the order proposal; an order-receiving-side's utility computation unit 22 which computes utility values for the order-receiving side with respect to the negotiation candidates; an order-placing source's utility estimation unit which estimates utility values for the order-placing source with respect to the negotiation candidates.)
a judging process for judging whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches a negotiation candidate determination unit which determines a negotiation candidate; Further, see Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation).
Yet Ando does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Kataoka teaches plurality of first deadlines (Kataoka throughout teaches a plurality of deadlines, including customer delivery deadlines, delivery deadlines, procurement deadline, See at least Kataoka, Figure 20, teaches delivery deadline; Figure 34C, teaching procurement deadline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ando with plurality of first deadlines as taught by Kataoka with the motivation for a business profit improvement support system for supporting a business profit improvement (Kataoka, Abstract). The Ando invention now incorporating the Kataoka invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to claim 1, the at least one processer further carrying out: (See at least Ando, para 0110, teaches processor; Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source)
an agreement candidate proposal generating process for generating a second agreement candidate proposal which is to be provided to the negotiation party and which includes a ...; and
an agreement candidate proposal providing process for providing the negotiation party with the second agreement candidate proposal (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source who presents, to an order-receiving side that provides any product or service, an order proposal that represents a request for provision of the any product or service under predetermined negotiation conditions, includes: a planning unit 21 which prepares one or more negotiation candidates based on the predetermined negotiation conditions presented in the order proposal; an order-receiving-side's utility computation unit 22 which computes utility values for the order-receiving side with respect to the negotiation candidates; an order-placing source's utility estimation unit which estimates utility values for the order-placing source with respect to the negotiation candidates.)
Yet Ando does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Kataoka teaches plurality of second deadlines (Kataoka throughout teaches a plurality of deadlines, including customer delivery deadlines, delivery deadlines, procurement deadline, See at least Kataoka, Figure 20, teaches delivery deadline; Figure 34C, teaching procurement deadline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ando with plurality of second deadlines as taught by Kataoka with the motivation for a business profit improvement support system for supporting a business profit improvement (Kataoka, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in the agreement candidate proposal acquiring process, the at least one processor displays the first agreement candidate proposal and the second agreement candidate proposal on display equipment such that a comparison between the first agreement candidate proposal and the second agreement candidate proposal is possible (See at least Ando, para 0060, teaches proposal comparison including the order-placing source's utility computation unit considers whether the utility value of the received negotiation candidate exceeds a threshold value. If the utility value of the received negotiation candidate do not exceed the threshold value, the order proposal presentation unit presents the order proposal again to the order-receiving-side negotiation agent that presented the negotiation candidate without changing the conditions. The value used for the comparison with the threshold value may be a value related to the negotiation candidate other than the utility value; Further, Ando, para 0115, teaches a display device).
Regarding Claim 4, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in the agreement candidate proposal generating process, the at least one processor generates, based on an operation of editing the first agreement candidate proposal, the second agreement candidate proposal (Ando, para 0064-0066, discusses The order proposal presentation unit may lower the above threshold value (Examiner notes edit) in accordance with the remaining negotiation time).
Regarding Claim 5, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the judging process, the at least one processor udges, based on a result of comparison between utility of the first agreement candidate proposal and utility of a second agreement candidate proposal to be provided to the negotiation party next, whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal (See at least Ando, para 0060-0063, teaching proposal comparisons and if the utility value of the received negotiation candidate exceed the threshold value, the order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation agent regarding the negotiation candidate).
Regarding Claim 6, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the negotiation is a negotiation regarding an order for a product accepted from the negotiation party, (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source);
the first agreement candidate proposal includes first proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, and (Ando, para 0069, The order proposal presentation unit 111 specifies a product, a quantity, a delivery date, and a response deadline, respectively, and presents an order proposal to the order-receiving-side negotiation agent);
in the judging process, the at least one processor judges, based on a result of comparison between (See at least Ando, para 0110, teaches processor; Ando, para 0069, teaches order proposal presentation unit waits until k negotiation candidates are received; Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions for which the following values are computed. In other words, the planning unit prepares (L×M×N) candidates (L, M, and N are natural numbers, respectively (Examiner notes is comparison of negotiations)); first cumulative proposed quantities, which each are a sum of the first proposed quantities by a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines, and cumulative valid stock quantities of the product, which each are a cumulative valid stock quantity at the corresponding point in time in the target period, (See at least Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions for which the following values are computed. In other words, the planning unit 121 prepares (L×M×N) candidates (L, M, and N are natural numbers, respectively); Ando, para 0072, Candidates with relaxed delivery conditions (extended delivery): d′=0, 1, 2, . . . , L ; Ando, para 0073, Candidates with relaxed quantity conditions (quantity reduction): q′=1.0, 1.0-a, 1.0-2a, . . . , 1.0-Ma (a is an arbitrary constant); Ando, para 0074, Candidates with relaxed price conditions (increased price): p′=1.0, 1.0-b, 1.0-2b, . . . , 1.0-Nb (b is an arbitrary constant). Further, Examiner notes various calculations are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art); whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches a negotiation candidate determination unit which determines a negotiation candidate; Further, see Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation).
Regarding Claim 7, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the negotiation is a negotiation regarding an order for a product placed with the negotiation party, (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source);
the first agreement candidate proposal includes first proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, and in the judging process, the at least one processor judge, based on a result of comparison between (See at least Ando, para 0110, teaches processor; Ando, para 0069, teaches order proposal presentation unit waits until k negotiation candidates are received; Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions for which the following values are computed. In other words, the planning unit prepares (L×M×N) candidates (L, M, and N are natural numbers, respectively (Examiner notes is comparison of negotiations));
first cumulative proposed quantities, which each are a sum of the first proposed quantities by a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines, and cumulative required quantities of the product, which each are a sum of required quantities of the product that are required by a corresponding point in time in the target period, (See at least Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions for which the following values are computed. In other words, the planning unit 121 prepares (L×M×N) candidates (L, M, and N are natural numbers, respectively); Ando, para 0072, Candidates with relaxed delivery conditions (extended delivery): d′=0, 1, 2, . . . , L ; Ando, para 0073, Candidates with relaxed quantity conditions (quantity reduction): q′=1.0, 1.0-a, 1.0-2a, . . . , 1.0-Ma (a is an arbitrary constant); Ando, para 0074, Candidates with relaxed price conditions (increased price): p′=1.0, 1.0-b, 1.0-2b, . . . , 1.0-Nb (b is an arbitrary constant). Further, Examiner notes various calculations are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art);
whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches a negotiation candidate determination unit which determines a negotiation candidate; Further, see Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation).
Regarding Claim 8, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the negotiation is a negotiation with the negotiation party regarding acceptance or placement of an order for a product, and in the judgingprocess, the at least one processor refers a minimum safety stock quantity, a maximum safety stock quantity, a safety lead time, or a standard packing quantity of the product, or a combination of some or all thereof, to judge whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches a negotiation candidate determination unit which determines a negotiation candidate; Further, see Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation; See at least Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit 121 prepares (L×M×N) candidates (L, M, and N are natural numbers, respectively); Ando, para 0073, teaches relaxed quantity conditions (quantity reduction): q′=1.0, 1.0-a, 1.0-2a, . . . , 1.0-Ma (a is an arbitrary constant; Further, Kataoka, teaches inventory management throughout, see at least Kataoka, para 0091)
Regarding Claim 9, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to any one of claim 2, wherein the negotiation is a negotiation regarding an order for a product accepted from the negotiation party, (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source);
the first agreement candidate proposal includes first proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, (See at least Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions for which the following values are computed. See at least Ando, para 0072, Candidates with relaxed delivery conditions (extended delivery): d′=0, 1, 2, . . . , L; See at least Kataoka, Figure 20, teaches delivery deadline; Further, see at least Kataoka, page 105, teaching delivery deadlines);
the second agreement candidate proposal includes second proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of second deadlines, and (See at least Ando, para 0073, teaches quantity conditions (quantity reduction): q′=1.0, 1.0-a, 1.0-2a, . . . , 1.0-Ma; Further, see at least Kataoka, page 105, teaching delivery deadlines);
in the agreement candidate proposal generating process, the at least one processor refers to: (See at least Ando, para 0110, teaches processor; Ando, para 0069, teaches order proposal presentation unit waits until k negotiation candidates are received; Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions);
cumulative valid stock quantities of the product which each are a cumulative valid stock quantity at a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines; and (See at least Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions; Ando, para 0072, delivery conditions (extended delivery): d′=0, 1, 2, . . . , L ; Ando, para 0073, quantity conditions (quantity reduction): q′=1.0, 1.0-a, 1.0-2a, . . . , 1.0-Ma (a is an arbitrary constant); Ando, para 0074, Candidates with relaxed price conditions (increased price): p′=1.0, 1.0-b, 1.0-2b, . . . , 1.0-Nb (b is an arbitrary constant));
pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, which are planned before a start of the negotiation and which each are a sum of planned delivery quantities of the product to be delivered to the negotiation party by a corresponding point in time in the target period, (Ando, para 0090, teaches an opportunity to negotiate once before agreeing with the order (Examiner notes pre-negotiation); Further, Kataoka, teaches customer delivery deadline throughout including time);
to determine, as at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a point in time at which a corresponding one of the cumulative valid stock quantities falls below a corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, and (Ando, para 0090, teaches an opportunity to negotiate once before agreeing with the order (Examiner notes pre-negotiation); Ando, para 0073, quantity conditions (quantity reduction): q′=1.0, 1.0-a, 1.0-2a, . . . , 1.0-Ma (a is an arbitrary constant);
determine, as one of the second proposed quantities that corresponds to the at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a quantity obtained by subtracting the corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities from the corresponding one of the cumulative valid stock quantities at the at least one of the plurality of second deadlines (See at least Ando, para 0042, estimation unit 123 has a function to estimate a utility value for the order-placing source. The opponent utility estimation unit computes an order quantity ratio q′, the number of days exceeding delivery date d′, and an order price ratio p′ based on an order quantity, an order delivery date, and an order price, which are a quantity, a delivery date, and a price ... (Order quantity ratio q′)=(Quantity)/(Order quantity) (Number of days exceeding delivery date d′)=(Delivery date)−(Order delivery date). Examiner notes various calculations are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding Claim 10, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to any one of claim 2, wherein the negotiation is a negotiation regarding an order for a product placed with the negotiation party, (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source); the first agreement candidate proposal includes first proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of first deadlines, (See at least Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions for which the following values are computed. See at least Ando, para 0072, Candidates with relaxed delivery conditions (extended delivery): d′=0, 1, 2, . . . , L; See at least Kataoka, Figure 20, teaches delivery deadline) ;
the second agreement candidate proposal includes second proposed quantities of the product which are proposed for respective deliveries corresponding to the plurality of second deadlines, and (See at least Ando, para 0073, teaches quantity conditions (quantity reduction): q′=1.0, 1.0-a, 1.0-2a, . . . , 1.0-Ma; Further, see at least Kataoka, page 105, teaching delivery deadlines
in the agreement candidate proposal generating process, the at least one processor refers(See at least Ando, para 0110, teaches processor; Ando, para 0069, teaches order proposal presentation unit waits until k negotiation candidates are received; Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions);
cumulative required quantities, which each are a sum of required quantities of the product that are required by a corresponding point in time in a target period that includes the plurality of first deadlines; and (See at least Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit prepares a negotiation candidate for each combination of negotiation conditions; Ando, para 0072, delivery conditions (extended delivery): d′=0, 1, 2, . . . , L ; Ando, para 0073, quantity conditions (quantity reduction): q′=1.0, 1.0-a, 1.0-2a, . . . , 1.0-Ma (a is an arbitrary constant); Ando, para 0074, Candidates with relaxed price conditions (increased price): p′=1.0, 1.0-b, 1.0-2b, . . . , 1.0-Nb (b is an arbitrary constant));
pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, which are planned before a start of the negotiation and which each are a sum of planned delivery quantities of the product to be delivered from the negotiation party by a corresponding point in time in the target period, (Ando, para 0090, teaches an opportunity to negotiate once before agreeing with the order (Examiner notes pre-negotiation); Further, Kataoka, teaches customer delivery deadline throughout including time);
to determine, as at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a point in time at which a corresponding one of the cumulative required quantities exceeds a corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities, and (Ando, para 0082, order-placing source's utility computation unit sets the largest utility value as the new umax if the largest utility value among the computed utility values exceeds umax ); determine, as one of the second proposed quantities that corresponds to the at least one of the plurality of second deadlines, a quantity obtained by subtracting the corresponding one of the pre-negotiation cumulative planned delivery quantities from the corresponding one of the cumulative required quantities (Ando, para 0082, if the largest utility value among the computed utility values exceeds umax. Next, the order proposal presentation unit executes the step S115 again; Ando, para 0042, estimation unit 123 has a function to estimate a utility value for the order-placing source. The opponent utility estimation unit computes an order quantity ratio q′, the number of days exceeding delivery date d′, and an order price ratio p′ based on an order quantity, an order delivery date, and an order price, which are a quantity, a delivery date, and a price ... (Order quantity ratio q′)=(Quantity)/(Order quantity) (Number of days exceeding delivery date d′)=(Delivery date)−(Order delivery date). Examiner notes various calculations are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding Claim 11, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches The negotiation apparatus according to any one of claim 2, wherein the negotiation is a negotiation with the negotiation party regarding acceptance or placement of an order for a product, and (See at least Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation).
in the agreement candidate proposal generating process, the at least one processor refers a minimum safety stock, a maximum safety stock, a safety lead time, and a standard packing quantity of the product or a combination of some or all thereof, to generate the second agreement candidate proposal (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches a negotiation candidate determination unit which determines a negotiation candidate; Further, see Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation; See at least Ando, para 0071, teaches the planning unit 121 prepares (L×M×N) candidates (L, M, and N are natural numbers, respectively); Ando, para 0073, teaches relaxed quantity conditions (quantity reduction): q′=1.0, 1.0-a, 1.0-2a, . . . , 1.0-Ma (a is an arbitrary constant; Further, Kataoka, teaches inventory management throughout, see at least Kataoka, para 0091).
Regarding Claim 12, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches A negotiation apparatus, comprising at least one processor, the at least one processer carrying out: (See at least Ando, para 0110, teaches processor; Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source)
an agreement candidate proposal generating process for generating, in a negotiation with the negotiation apparatus according to claim 1 as a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, the first agreement candidate proposal which is to be provided to the negotiation part(See at least Ando, para 0001, an order-receiving-side negotiation method; Further, Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source who presents, to an order-receiving side that provides any product or service, an order proposal that represents a request for provision of the any product or service under predetermined negotiation conditions, includes: a planning unit 21 which prepares one or more negotiation candidates based on the predetermined negotiation conditions presented in the order proposal; an order-receiving-side's utility computation unit 22 which computes utility values for the order-receiving side with respect to the negotiation candidates; an order-placing source's utility estimation unit which estimates utility values for the order-placing source with respect to the negotiation candidates.);and
an agreement candidate proposal providing process for providing the negotiation party with the first agreement candidate proposal (Ando throughout teaches presentation unit for order proposals; see at least Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation).
Regarding Claim 13, Ando teaches A negotiation method, comprising: a computer acquiring, in a negotiation with a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, a first agreement candidate proposal which is provided by the negotiation party and which includes a ...; and (See at least Ando, para 0001, an order-receiving-side negotiation method; Further, Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source who presents, to an order-receiving side that provides any product or service, an order proposal that represents a request for provision of the any product or service under predetermined negotiation conditions, includes: a planning unit 21 which prepares one or more negotiation candidates based on the predetermined negotiation conditions presented in the order proposal; an order-receiving-side's utility computation unit 22 which computes utility values for the order-receiving side with respect to the negotiation candidates; an order-placing source's utility estimation unit which estimates utility values for the order-placing source with respect to the negotiation candidates.);
the computer judging whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches a negotiation candidate determination unit which determines a negotiation candidate; Further, see Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation).
Yet Ando does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Kataoka teaches plurality of first deadlines (Kataoka throughout teaches a plurality of deadlines, including customer delivery deadlines, delivery deadlines, procurement deadline, See at least Kataoka, Figure 20, teaches delivery deadline; Figure 34C, teaching procurement deadline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ando with plurality of first deadlines as taught by Kataoka with the motivation for a business profit improvement support system for supporting a business profit improvement (Kataoka, Abstract). The Ando invention now incorporating the Kataoka invention, has all the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches A negotiation method, comprising: a computer generating, in a negotiation with a computer that carries out the negotiation method according to claim 13 and that is a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, the first agreement candidate proposal which is to be provided to the negotiation part(See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source who presents, to an order-receiving side that provides any product or service, an order proposal that represents a request for provision of the any product or service under predetermined negotiation conditions, includes: a planning unit 21 which prepares one or more negotiation candidates based on the predetermined negotiation conditions presented in the order proposal; an order-receiving-side's utility computation unit 22 which computes utility values for the order-receiving side with respect to the negotiation candidates; an order-placing source's utility estimation unit which estimates utility values for the order-placing source with respect to the negotiation candidates.)
the computer providing the negotiation party with the first agreement candidate proposal (Ando throughout teaches presentation unit for order proposals; see at least Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation).
Regarding Claim 15, Ando teaches A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to carry out: (Ando, para 0113, teaches non-transitory tangible medium);
an agreement candidate proposal acquiring process for acquiring, in a negotiation with a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, a first agreement candidate proposal which is provided by the negotiation party and which includes a ...; and (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source who presents, to an order-receiving side that provides any product or service, an order proposal that represents a request for provision of the any product or service under predetermined negotiation conditions, includes: a planning unit 21 which prepares one or more negotiation candidates based on the predetermined negotiation conditions presented in the order proposal; an order-receiving-side's utility computation unit 22 which computes utility values for the order-receiving side with respect to the negotiation candidates; an order-placing source's utility estimation unit which estimates utility values for the order-placing source with respect to the negotiation candidates.)
a judging process for judging whether to agree to the first agreement candidate proposal (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches a negotiation candidate determination unit which determines a negotiation candidate; Further, see Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation).
Yet Ando does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Kataoka teaches plurality of first deadlines (Kataoka throughout teaches a plurality of deadlines, including customer delivery deadlines, delivery deadlines, procurement deadline, See at least Kataoka, Figure 20, teaches delivery deadline; Figure 34C, teaching procurement deadline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ando with plurality of first deadlines as taught by Kataoka with the motivation for a business profit improvement support system for supporting a business profit improvement (Kataoka, Abstract). The Ando invention now incorporating the Kataoka invention, has all the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Ando, now incorporating Kataoka, teaches A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to carry out: (Ando, para 0113, teaches non-transitory tangible medium);
an agreement candidate proposal generating process for generating, in a negotiation with a computer that carries out the program stored in the storage medium according to claim 15 and that is a negotiation party which is a negotiating partner, the first agreement candidate proposal which is to be provided to the negotiation party; and (See at least Ando, Abstract, teaches negotiation device for negotiating with an order-placing source who presents, to an order-receiving side that provides any product or service, an order proposal that represents a request for provision of the any product or service under predetermined negotiation conditions, includes: a planning unit 21 which prepares one or more negotiation candidates based on the predetermined negotiation conditions presented in the order proposal; an order-receiving-side's utility computation unit 22 which computes utility values for the order-receiving side with respect to the negotiation candidates; an order-placing source's utility estimation unit which estimates utility values for the order-placing source with respect to the negotiation candidates.)
an agreement candidate proposal providing process for providing the negotiation party with the first agreement candidate proposal (Ando throughout teaches presentation unit for order proposals; see at least Ando, para 0063, teaches order proposal presentation unit agrees with the order-receiving-side negotiation).
Additional Prior Art Consulted
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure includes the following:
Dean US 2002/0178093 A1 - The present invention is a method and apparatus that allows competing as well as complementing suppliers, vendors, service providers, purveyors, and other types of sellers internal inventory management.
Sengupta US 2014/0039964 A1 – order management and shipping
Sunder US 2020/0020061 A1 – method and system for performing negotiation task using reinforcement agents.
WO 2021/033302 A1 – order-receiving negotiation device, method and program
NPL – Sakyibea Darko-Ampem; Maria Katsoufi; Pablo Giambiagi, “Secure Negotiation in Virtual Organizations”, Published in: 2006 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW'06), Secure Negotiation in Virtual Organizations | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore - Virtual organizations are dynamic associations of business partners that join forces to achieve a common goal. Because partners live in very competitive environments and they do not fully trust each other, they establish contractual agreements to help reduce the risk of participating in the virtual organization. This naturally puts severe demands on the security of the process leading to the establishment of a contract, including negotiation of terms and conditions. The open context in which virtual organizations are created raises further security concerns. This papers discusses the security requirements over contract negotiation that arise in this context, examines current negotiation protocols and proposes enhancements to one of them.
Applicant is advised to review additional references supplied on the PTO-892 as to the state of the art of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629