DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the application filed on 4/3/25.
Examiner notes that this application is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2022/038196.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 10/13/22, which stems from the aforementioned PCT.
Examiner further notes that Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on 4/3/25, in which claims 1-8 and 10 were amended.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10, in part, describe an invention comprising: (1) adding a reason for provision to an agreement candidate proposal in a first negotiation with a first negotiation party, and (2) providing the agreement candidate proposal with the added reason to the first negotiation party. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of explaining or justifying offers in commercial negotiations based on the status of other concurrent negotiations, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (commercial negotiations, contractual relationships, and multi-party bargaining strategies), as well as a mental process (determining what reason to provide based on the status of another negotiation, deciding what information from one negotiation should inform another negotiation, and formulating explanations or justifications for negotiation proposals). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: providing/transmitting the agreement candidate proposal to the negotiation party. Examiner understands this limitation to be insignificant extra-solution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: (1) at least one processor performing the provision reason adding process and agreement candidate proposal providing process (claim 1), and (2) a computer performing the adding and providing steps (claim 9). These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than field-of-use limitations (applying the abstract idea to automated negotiation systems in a multi-party commercial context), with generic computer components (processors, computers) to automate the mental processes of deciding what reason to provide in negotiations and formulating explanations based on information from concurrent negotiations. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use information gathering and proposal generation processes to perform negotiation strategy and explanation formulation, merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., transmitting proposals to negotiation parties), and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a generic processor-based system in a multi-party negotiation context).
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Transmitting/providing data (proposals, reasons, negotiation information) over a network to users or negotiation parties. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-8 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and further limit the abstract idea with non-functional descriptive features as follows:
basing the reason for provision on a status of a second negotiation conducted in association with the first negotiation, and referring to association information and status information to generate the reason (claim 2);
adding guarantee information for guaranteeing validity of the reason (claim 3);
adding a reason that is inputted via input equipment (claim 4);
referring to content of an agreement candidate proposal in the second negotiation or information indicating a result of the second negotiation as the status information (claim 5);
referring to information indicating an association where one negotiation is conducted for formation of agreement in the other (claim 6);
referring to information indicating an association of conducting negotiations in parallel for selective formation of agreement in only one negotiation (claim 7);
referring to information indicating an association of conducting negotiations in parallel for formation of agreement in both negotiations (claim 8).
These claims merely specify particular implementation details or variations on the fundamental business practice of formulating negotiation strategies and explanations based on the relationship between concurrent negotiations. They do not recite any additional functional computer operations beyond those recited in the independent claims, and do not affect an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, in negotiation technology, or in any other technical field. The dependent claims merely add further detail to the abstract idea of multi-party negotiation strategy without providing significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-10 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ephrati (US 7,296,001 B1) in view of Lin (US 8,412,535 B2).
Claims 1 and 9-10: Ephrati discloses a negotiation apparatus, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 1 showing negotiation facilitator system 110; Fig. 13, element 1201 showing processor; col. 4, lines 45-50 describing the negotiation facilitator system), the at least one processor carrying out a negotiation process (col. 4, lines 45-65 describing the negotiation facilitator system 110 receiving multi-attribute offers from buyers and sellers, facilitating negotiation among the parties, and selectively disclosing information; Fig. 7C showing flowchart of negotiation setup process; Fig. 8 showing offer validation process; Fig. 9 showing offer processing by the facilitator system):
in a first negotiation with a first negotiation party (Fig. 7B showing "ACTIVE NEGOTIATION WITH SELLER A" 410A, which is a first negotiation with a first negotiation party (Seller A), initiated by "NEGOTIATION INITIATING OFFER BY BUYER A" 406; col. 8, lines 60-67) an agreement candidate proposal (col. 6, lines 40-65 describing negotiation offer object 300 used for posting offers and counter offers; Fig. 3 showing offer object structure including offer identification, free text, and offer expiration; col. 7, lines 1-10 describing proposals being validated and disclosed to parties) providing process of providing the first negotiation party with the agreement candidate proposal (Fig. 8, step 810: "FACILITATOR SENDS MESSAGE TO OFFEROR THAT OFFER IS VALID AND DISCLOSES OFFER TO OFFEREE"; col. 7, lines 30-40 describing validation and disclosure process; Fig. 1 showing network 112 connecting parties to facilitator system 110; col. 4, lines 55-65 describing transmission of proposals to negotiation parties).
Ephrati does not appear to explicitly describe "a provision reason adding process of adding, in a first negotiation with a first negotiation party, a reason for provision to an agreement candidate proposal which is to be provided to the first negotiation party.”
Lin, however, discloses a provision reason adding process of adding, in a first negotiation with a first negotiation party, a reason for provision to an agreement candidate proposal which is to be provided to the first negotiation party (col. 2, lines 55-60: "The negotiation management module receives the second proposals from the first negotiation module and the third proposals from the second negotiation module, and generates the fourth proposals according to the second proposals and the third proposals"; col. 4, lines 10-15: "In step S4123, new proposals are generated according to the received proposals" from both negotiation agent modules 221 and 231, meaning the new proposals incorporate information from multiple concurrent negotiations; col. 6, lines 1-10 providing example where proposals P6, P3, P4 from first agent 221 are combined with proposals P4, P6, P5 from second agent 231 to generate new proposals P7-P12, demonstrating that new proposals incorporate reasoning/information from both concurrent negotiations, thereby adding a reason based on the second negotiation's information to the proposal for the first negotiation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine these features of Lin with those of Ephrati. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve negotiation efficiency by providing parties with proposals that incorporate and reflect information from associated concurrent negotiations, thereby creating better-informed proposals that leverage the overall negotiation landscape managed by the facilitator system, as suggested by Ephrati's teaching of selectively disclosing negotiation information between associated negotiations (col. 12, lines 35-45; Fig. 9, step 906).
Claim 2: The Ephrati/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Ephrati, however, further discloses the second negotiation is a negotiation with a second negotiation party conducted in association with the first negotiation, the second negotiation party being different from the first negotiation party (Fig. 7B showing "ACTIVE NEGOTIATION WITH SELLER A" 410A, "ACTIVE NEGOTIATION WITH SELLER B" 410B, and "ACTIVE NEGOTIATION WITH SELLER C" 410C, which are different negotiations with different negotiation parties (Sellers A, B, and C) conducted in association with each other by the same buyer (Buyer A) and managed by the negotiation facilitator system 110; Fig. 1 showing the facilitator system 110 managing multiple associated negotiations; col. 5, lines 25-35).
Lin, however, further discloses the reason for provision is a reason for provision based on a status of a second negotiation, which is different from the first negotiation (col. 2, lines 55-60; col. 4, lines 10-15; col. 6, lines 1-10 showing the negotiation management module generates new proposals based on information from both negotiation agent modules 221 and 231, which represent different concurrent negotiations).
Lin further discloses "in the provision reason adding process, the at least one processor refers to information which indicates an association between the first negotiation and the second negotiation and information which indicates the status of the second negotiation to generate the reason for provision, and add, to the agreement candidate proposal, the reason for provision generated" (col. 2, lines 45-55: negotiation management module receives proposals from both first negotiation agent module 221 and second negotiation agent module 231, which are associated negotiations coordinated by the same management module; col. 4, lines 10-15: "In step S4123, new proposals are generated according to the received proposals," meaning the system refers to the status/content of proposals from the second negotiation agent to generate new proposals; col. 6, lines 1-10: system receives proposals P6, P3, P4 from first agent 221 and proposals P4, P6, P5 from second agent 231, and generates new proposals P7-P12 by combining them using recombination processes, demonstrating that the system refers to status information from both associated negotiations to generate the new proposals which incorporate that information).
The rationale for combining Lin with Ephrati is articulated above and incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 3: The Ephrati/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Ephrati, however, further discloses guarantee information for guaranteeing validity [of the offer] (Fig. 8, step 808: "OFFER VALID/QUALIFYING?" and step 810: "FACILITATOR SENDS MESSAGE TO OFFEROR THAT OFFER IS VALID" showing system validates offers before disclosing them; Fig. 9, step 902: "FACILITATOR SYSTEM RECORDS AN OFFER ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATION" and col. 12, lines 20-25 describing that the system records and stores negotiation history and state information, which serves as guarantee/verification of validity of disclosed information).
Lin, on the other hand, further discloses "wherein in the provision reason adding process, the at least one processor further adds, to the agreement candidate proposal, the reason for provision" (col. 7, lines 45-55 describing the negotiation management module adding deal information including reasons/explanations to proposals before transmitting to counterparties).
The rationale for combining Lin with Ephrati is articulated above and incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 4: The Ephrati/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Ephrati further discloses [offers that are] inputted via input equipment (Fig. 2 showing input device 1209 "KEYBOARD" and Fig. 13 showing input device 1209; col. 6, lines 10-15: "The negotiation initiator may also enter free text in free text box, such as 'Serious offers only' or 'I intend to make similar offers weekly,'" demonstrating that the negotiation party inputs textual reason/explanation via input equipment and the system adds this inputted reason to the proposal object which is transmitted to other parties).
Lin, however, further discloses wherein in the provision reason adding process, the at least one processor adds, to the agreement candidate proposal, the reason for provision (col. 7, lines 45-55 describing the negotiation management module adding deal information including reasons/explanations to proposals before transmitting to counterparties).
The rationale for combining Lin with Ephrati is articulated above and incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 5: The Ephrati/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Lin, however, further discloses wherein in the provision reason adding process, the at least one processor refers to content of an agreement candidate proposal in the second negotiation, as the information which indicates the status of the second negotiation (col. 4, lines 10-15: "In step S4123, new proposals are generated according to the received proposals" showing the system receives and refers to proposals from the second negotiation agent module; col. 6, lines 1-5: system receives and refers to specific proposal content P4, P6, P5 from second negotiation agent module 231, and uses this proposal content to generate new proposals, where the proposal content itself indicates the current status of the second negotiation).
The rationale for combining Lin with Ephrati is articulated above and incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 6: The Ephrati/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Ephrati, however, further discloses conducting one of the first negotiation and the second negotiation for formation of agreement in the other, as the information which indicates an association (col. 9, lines 35-50 describing switchable bilateral negotiation where buyer switches between different sellers based on progress in negotiations; col. 10, lines 5-15: system "receives indication of acceptable negotiation from first negotiation" and then "sends message to third party to submit final offer," demonstrating that one negotiation (with third party/Seller B) is conducted based on the formation/progress of agreement in the other negotiation (first negotiation with Seller A), which is information indicating the association between the negotiations).
Lin, however, further discloses wherein in the provision reason adding process, the at least one processor refers to information which indicates an association (col. 7, lines 45-55 describing the negotiation management module processing and adding information about deal associations and relationships to proposals).
The rationale for combining Lin with Ephrati is articulated above and incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 7: The Ephrati/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Ephrati, however, further discloses conducting the first negotiation and the second negotiation in parallel for selective formation of agreement only in either the first negotiation or the second negotiation, as the information which indicates an association (Fig. 7B showing concurrent bilateral negotiations 410A with Seller A and 410B with Seller B conducted simultaneously in parallel; col. 9, lines 1-20 describing concurrent bilateral negotiation; col. 9, lines 45-55 and Fig. 7B showing that upon acceptance in one negotiation, a deal is formed and the other negotiations typically terminate, demonstrating selective formation of agreement in only one negotiation; Fig. 7B showing all negotiations 410A, 410B, 410C leading to single "DEAL," which is mutually exclusive formation of agreement in only one of the parallel negotiations).
Lin, on the other hand, further discloses wherein in the provision reason adding process, the at least one processor refers to information which indicates an association (col. 7, lines 45-55 describing the negotiation management module processing and adding information about deal associations and relationships to proposals).
The rationale for combining Lin with Ephrati is articulated above and incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 8: The Ephrati/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Ephrati, however, further discloses conducting the first negotiation and the second negotiation in parallel for formation of agreement in both the first negotiation and the second negotiation, as the information which indicates an association (Fig. 6, element 160 showing many-to-many multilateral negotiation; col. 10, lines 50-65 describing many-to-many multilateral negotiations; col. 11, lines 1-15: "A many-to-many multilateral negotiation may include multiple buyers and multiple sellers... may result in multiple deals," demonstrating that the system conducts parallel negotiations where agreements can form in multiple negotiations simultaneously, rather than being mutually exclusive).
Lin, on the other hand, further discloses wherein in the provision reason adding process, the at least one processor refers to information which indicates an association (col. 7, lines 45-55 describing the negotiation management module processing and adding information about deal associations and relationships to proposals).
The rationale for combining Lin with Ephrati is articulated above and incorporated herein by reference.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the aforementioned rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Batachia et al. (7103580), directed to a method for negotiation using intelligent agents.
Noh et al. (20140019368), directed to a method for automated negotiation.
Vasiliu et al. (20100332376), directed to a system and method for auction negotiation.
Rairick et al. (WO2014003917), directed to a method of online price negotiation.
Zhou et al. (CN115345486), directed to a method for exciting contract negotiation under dynamic multi-cycle project joint development.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621