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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “agreement candidate proposal acquisition processing”, “concession status information acquisition”, “response processing” in claim 1, “same agreement candidate proposal provision processing” in claim 7; “input processing” claim 9-12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim(s) 1/13/14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1/13/14 is/are directed towards a computer system (i.e. machine), a method (i.e. a process) and computer readable medium (i.e. a manufacture), respectively. Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 1/13/14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “acquiring a first agreement candidate proposal provided from a negotiation subject, in a negotiation with the negotiation subject that is a negotiation partner; acquiring concession status information indicating a concession status of the negotiation subject in the first agreement candidate proposal; and executing processing for responding to the first agreement candidate proposal, according to the concession status indicated by the concession status information”.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of “negotiating an agreement” which is a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; 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).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites memory, processor, “agreement candidate proposal acquisition processing”, “concession status information acquisition processing” and “response processing” (claim 1), one or more processors (claim 13) and “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “agreement candidate proposal acquisition means”, “concession status information acquisition means” and “response means” (claim 14). Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element(s), alone or in combination, do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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(s), alone or in combination, is/are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claim(s) 7 and 9-12 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/3 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“same agreement candidate proposal provision processing”, “input processing” is/are recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8 and 15-20 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) XXX is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyman Faratin, “Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents”, published by Robotics and Autonomous Systems in 1998, hereinafter “Faratin” in view of Scott Buffett, “Detecting Opponent Concessions in Multi-issue automated negotiation”, published by ICEC06 in 2006, hereinafter “Buffett” in further view of Huet (US 2005/0213743)
As per claim 1/13/14, Faratin discloses a negotiation system comprising: a memory configured to store instructions: and a processor configured to execute the instructions to do:
agreement candidate proposal acquisition processing that acquires a first agreement candidate proposal provided from a negotiation subject, in a negotiation with the negotiation subject that is a negotiation partner (page 165, “Once the agents have determined the set of variables over which they will negotiate, the negotiation process between two agents (a, b e Agents) consists of an alternate succession of offers and counter offers of values for these variables. This continues until an offer or counter offer is accepted by the other side or one of the partners terminates negotiation (e.g. because the time deadline is reached without an agreement being in place)• Negotiation can be initiated by clients or servers.”, “For notational simplicity, we assume that tl corresponds to the initial time value, that is tl = 0. In other words, there is a local time for each negotiation thread, that starts with the utterance of the first offer• When agent a receives an offer from agent b at time t, xtb~a , it has to rate the offer using its scoring function.”)
response processing that executes processing for responding to the first agreement candidate proposal (page 165, “For notational simplicity, we assume that tl corresponds to the initial time value, that is tl = 0. In other words, there is a local time for each negotiation thread, that starts with the utterance of the first offer• When agent a receives an offer from agent b at time t, xtb~a , it has to rate the offer using its scoring function. If the value of V a (xtb__,a) is greater than the value' of the counter offer agent a is ready to send at the time t' when the evaluation is performed, that i• s Xat ~~ b with t r > t, then agent a accepts• Otherwise, the counter offer is submitted. Expressing this concept more formally);
However, Faratin does not disclose but Buffett discloses concession status information acquisition processing that acquires concession status information indicating a concession status of the negotiation subject in the first agreement candidate proposal (abstract, “Patterns in the similarity between the opponent’s offers and our own agent’s offers are used to determine the likelihood that the opponent is making a concession at each stage in the negotiation. These probabilities of concession are then used to determine the opponent’s most likely preference relation over all offers.”, page 14, “Based on the assumptions about an opponent’s negotiation strategy given in the previous section, we determine the likelihood that an opponent’s most recent offer in a negotiation is less preferred to the opponent than one of its previous offers. That is, we determine the likelihood that each offer is a concession in utility compared to each of the previous offers. From these probabilities, we then determine the most likely ordering of the opponent’s offers according to its personal preference relation. The central criterion for determining the likelihood of the opponent’s preferences lies in the similarity measures of the opponent’s offers. By using the assumptions in the previous section, some inferences can be made on the probabilities of opponent concessions by analyzing these similarities.”, page 16); and
Response to offers according to the concession status indicated by the concession status information (page 17, see at least “In the second experiment, we tested the technique against an agent using strategies similar to those of Faratin et al. [8] Here, the agent looks at several desirable offers, each with the same (or close to the same) utility, and selects the one with the highest similarity to its opponent’s offers. If this offer is rejected, then the next most similar offer is selected, and so on. If the agent feels like no progress is going to be made, a concession is given and the agent examines a set of offers with slightly lower utility. We emulate this by choosing a value for n, and then decrementing n each time an offer is made. So the agent examines the best n offers, selecting the most similar. If this is rejected, then the agent looks at the best n − 1 offers, which is the same as the set from the previous set, minus the offer given. This continues until n reaches one half of its original value. At this time the concession is made and n is restored to its original value. Figure 2 gives the results from experiments using n = 6, 8, 10. The number of times that each method recorded the lower distance out of the 500 cases (ties excluded) are given in Table 4.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing of the invention to include the limitations as taught by Buffett in the teaching of Faratin, in order to find mutually acceptable agreements more quickly, but also to negotiate deals that are better for the agent in question (please see Buffett abstract).
However, Faratin highly suggests but does not explicitly disclose but Huet discloses a memory configured to store instructions: and a processor configured to execute the instructions to do negotiations (paragraph 65-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Huet in the teaching of Faratin, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2/15, Faratin discloses wherein the response processing includes processing that determines whether to agree with the first agreement candidate proposal, (page 165, “For notational simplicity, we assume that tl corresponds to the initial time value, that is tl = 0. In other words, there is a local time for each negotiation thread, that starts with the utterance of the first offer• When agent a receives an offer from agent b at time t, xtb~a , it has to rate the offer using its scoring function. If the value of V a (xtb__,a) is greater than the value' of the counter offer agent a is ready to send at the time t' when the evaluation is performed, that i• s Xat ~~ b with t r > t, then agent a accepts• Otherwise, the counter offer is submitted. Expressing this concept more formally” Faratin determines whether to accept the incoming proposal or counteroffer. Buffett’s concession likelihood supplies the opponent concession information used by the combined behavior-dependent decision process.)
However, Faratin does not disclose but Buffett discloses according to the concession status indicated by the concession status information (page 17, see at least “In the second experiment, we tested the technique against an agent using strategies similar to those of Faratin et al. [8] Here, the agent looks at several desirable offers, each with the same (or close to the same) utility, and selects the one with the highest similarity to its opponent’s offers. If this offer is rejected, then the next most similar offer is selected, and so on. If the agent feels like no progress is going to be made, a concession is given and the agent examines a set of offers with slightly lower utility. We emulate this by choosing a value for n, and then decrementing n each time an offer is made. So the agent examines the best n offers, selecting the most similar. If this is rejected, then the agent looks at the best n − 1 offers, which is the same as the set from the previous set, minus the offer given. This continues until n reaches one half of its original value. At this time the concession is made and n is restored to its original value. Figure 2 gives the results from experiments using n = 6, 8, 10. The number of times that each method recorded the lower distance out of the 500 cases (ties excluded) are given in Table 4.”)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 3/16, Faratin discloses wherein the response processing includes processing that provides a second agreement candidate proposal according to the concession status indicated by the concession status information, to the negotiation subject, in a case where the first agreement candidate proposal is not agreed (page 165, “Once the agents have determined the set of variables over which they will negotiate, the negotiation process between two agents (a, b e Agents) consists of an alternate succession of offers and counter offers of values for these variables. This continues until an offer or counter offer is accepted by the other side or one of the partners terminates negotiation (e.g. because the time deadline is reached without an agreement being in place)• Negotiation can be initiated by clients or servers.”, “For notational simplicity, we assume that tl corresponds to the initial time value, that is tl = 0. In other words, there is a local time for each negotiation thread, that starts with the utterance of the first offer• When agent a receives an offer from agent b at time t, xtb~a , it has to rate the offer using its scoring function.”, (page 17, see at least “In the second experiment, we tested the technique against an agent using strategies similar to those of Faratin et al. [8] Here, the agent looks at several desirable offers, each with the same (or close to the same) utility, and selects the one with the highest similarity to its opponent’s offers. If this offer is rejected, then the next most similar offer is selected, and so on. If the agent feels like no progress is going to be made, a concession is given and the agent examines a set of offers with slightly lower utility. We emulate this by choosing a value for n, and then decrementing n each time an offer is made. So the agent examines the best n offers, selecting the most similar. If this is rejected, then the agent looks at the best n − 1 offers, which is the same as the set from the previous set, minus the offer given. This continues until n reaches one half of its original value. At this time the concession is made and n is restored to its original value. Figure 2 gives the results from experiments using n = 6, 8, 10. The number of times that each method recorded the lower distance out of the 500 cases (ties excluded) are given in Table 4.” Faratin discloses when the first offer is not accepted, Faratin submits a counteroffer. Its value mirrors opponent behavior. While Buffet identifies the concession represented by that behavior. The counteroffer is therefore the claimed second proposal generated according to the concession status.).
However, Faratin does not disclose but Buffett discloses according to the concession status indicated by the concession status information (page 17, see at least “In the second experiment, we tested the technique against an agent using strategies similar to those of Faratin et al. [8] Here, the agent looks at several desirable offers, each with the same (or close to the same) utility, and selects the one with the highest similarity to its opponent’s offers. If this offer is rejected, then the next most similar offer is selected, and so on. If the agent feels like no progress is going to be made, a concession is given and the agent examines a set of offers with slightly lower utility. We emulate this by choosing a value for n, and then decrementing n each time an offer is made. So the agent examines the best n offers, selecting the most similar. If this is rejected, then the agent looks at the best n − 1 offers, which is the same as the set from the previous set, minus the offer given. This continues until n reaches one half of its original value. At this time the concession is made and n is restored to its original value. Figure 2 gives the results from experiments using n = 6, 8, 10. The number of times that each method recorded the lower distance out of the 500 cases (ties excluded) are given in Table 4.”)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 4/17, the combination of Faratin in view of Buffett discloses wherein the response processing executes processing to determine whether to agree with the first agreement candidate proposal, based on whether a utility obtained from the first agreement candidate proposal is larger than a threshold and uses a smaller threshold as a degree of a concession indicated by the concession status information is larger, as the threshold (Buffet, page 16, “In each run, the opponent (consumer) used a similarity maximization strategy as described above. Thus each time it was the consumer’s turn to make an offer, it would look at all offers with utility above some reserve utility, and choose the one that was most similar to all of the producer’s previous offers. The reserve utility would then monotonically decrease over the duration of the negotiation. If this reserve utility was always high and thus allowed very few offers to be examined, then as a result the consumer would generally make steady concessions throughout the negotiation. On the other hand, if the reserve utility was relatively low and thus allowed the consumer to consider several possible offers in search of the most similar, then it becomes more likely that the consumer will often move up and down its preference ranking and therefore will make several nonconcessions. This situation is the true test of our technique’s performance. A utility threshold was selected for each agent, and the negotiation stopped when an agent received an offer whose utility met or exceeded its threshold. In the experiments, thresholds were chosen so that there would be exactly one mutually acceptable deal” Buffett’s negotiation stops when an agent receives an offer whose utility meets or exceeds its threshold. This is the claimed comparison between first proposal utility and an acceptance threshold. “ page 169 of Faratin discloses “Relative Tit-For-Tat. The agent reproduces, in percentage terms, the behaviour that its opponent performed 8 _> 1 steps ago. The condition of applicability of this tactic is n > 28.” Faratin reciprocates the percentage movement made by the opponent. A larger opponent concession therefore causes a larger own concession and reduces the responding agent’s utility for its contemplated counteroffer. Faratin’s definition 2 uses the utility of that contemplated counteroffer as the acceptance boundary which consequently, a larger detected concession produces a smaller threshold. Therefore, Buffett provides the concession degree input that determines how much reciprocal movement Faratin makes)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 5/18, the combination of Faratin in view of Buffett discloses wherein the response processing provides the second agreement candidate proposal of which a utility to be obtained is smaller or an estimated utility of the negotiation subject side is larger, as a degree of a concession indicated by the concession status information is larger (Faratin in page 169 discloses “Relative Tit-For-Tat. The agent reproduces, in percentage terms, the behaviour that its opponent performed 8 _> 1 steps ago. The condition of applicability of this tactic is n > 28” Faratin mirrors a larger opponent concession with a larger reciprocal concession. In its’ opposing interest negotiation model, moving farther toward the opponent’s position reduces the responding agent’s own utility for the resulting counterproposal. In page 14, Buffett discloses “Based on the assumptions about an opponent’s negotiation strategy given in the previous section, we determine the likelihood that an opponent’s most recent offer in a negotiation is less preferred to the opponent than one of its previous offers. That is, we determine the likelihood that each offer is a concession in utility compared to each of the previous offers. From these probabilities, we then determine the most likely ordering of the opponent’s offers according to its personal preference relation. The central criterion for determining the likelihood of the opponent’s preferences lies in the similarity measures of the opponent’s offers. By using the assumptions in the previous section, some inferences can be made on the probabilities of opponent concessions by analyzing these similarities”. Buffett estimates the opponent’s preference ordering from its offer history and uses that model to identify proposals more likely to be preferred and accepted by the opponent. Therefore, Buffett supplies the concession magnitude and opponent preference estimate. Faratin uses the magnitude to select the size of the reciprocal counteroffer movement. A larger input yields lower own utility; selecting among candidate responses using Bufett’s preference model additionally favors higher estimated opponent utility.)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) XXX is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Faratin” in view of “Buffett” in further view of Huet, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in further view of Makar (US 2012/0095835).
As per claim 6/19, Faratin does not disclose but Buffett discloses the concession status information acquisition processing estimates the concession status according to an input/behavior (In page 14, Buffett discloses “Based on the assumptions about an opponent’s negotiation strategy given in the previous section, we determine the likelihood that an opponent’s most recent offer in a negotiation is less preferred to the opponent than one of its previous offers. That is, we determine the likelihood that each offer is a concession in utility compared to each of the previous offers. From these probabilities, we then determine the most likely ordering of the opponent’s offers according to its personal preference relation. The central criterion for determining the likelihood of the opponent’s preferences lies in the similarity measures of the opponent’s offers. By using the assumptions in the previous section, some inferences can be made on the probabilities of opponent concessions by analyzing these similarities”.
Makar discloses wherein in a case of acquiring a providing reason of the first agreement candidate proposal, as the concession status information ([0075] Information from the end-user through chat window 756 including questions, responses and reasons including "why" a transaction is being discontinued by the end-user are stored in database 760. This reason provides important additional information to the end-user's behavior. This interaction with the direct response from the end-user via chat window 756 is used as explicit feedback and this context is updated in database 760. For example, filling out a form, placing an order, supplying a credit card number, completing a survey, providing a survey or lead form, executing a software download, etc. are all forms of transactions. This feedback may include detailed information about a particular end-user's response to a direct advertisement, as well as the context under which the response was obtained. Alternatively, the feedback may include a subset of the preceding information. Or, the feedback may convey information that the end-user did not respond to the advertisement, if such was the case. The feedback information is used by the predictive model 758 to further refine future predictions about the optimal responses or offers to deliver from the chat server 752 to the end-user through chat window 756.” Makar receives the end user’s explanation for discontinuing the proposed transaction, such as price, financing, shipping, etc.. In the negotiation context of Buffet, that explanation is the reason for the negotiation subject’s proposal or refusal to accept. Therefore, Buffett teaches estimating whether the current offer is a concession by calculating a concession likelihood from negotiation behavior. Makar teaches using the negotiation subject’s stated reason as additional behavioral information supplied to a predictive model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Makar in the teaching of Faratin in view of Buffett, in order provides important additional information to the end-user's behavior (please see Makar paragraph 75).
Claim(s) XXX is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Faratin” in view of “Buffett” in further view of Huet, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1/3, in further view of Ephrati (US 2008/0027879).
As per claim 7/20, Faratin discloses the first offer and second counter offer sequence as per claim 1. However, Faratin does not disclose but Ephrati discloses same agreement candidate proposal provision processing that provides an agreement candidate proposal same as the first agreement candidate proposal to the agreement candidate proposal acquisition processing as a new first agreement candidate proposal, in a case where the concession status information indicates that the first agreement candidate proposal is a final proposal and the negotiation subject does not agree with the second agreement candidate proposal ([0054]-[0056] Once a counter offer is established, the buyer 102 may submit a counter offer to the counter offer of the seller 104. Once a bilateral negotiation is established, the offeree of each counter offer may accept, counter offer, or reject the counter offer. A rejection of a counter offer has the effect of the counter offer having never been made. A rejection returns the negotiation to the state prior to that counter offer being made and is in essence a request for another counter offer. In addition, an acceptance generally forms a deal and terminates the negotiation. Thus, the buyer and seller may accept, counter offer, or reject the counter offer from the other as well as retract its own counter offer prior to the other party responding thereto. [0068] However, the case where a seller submits an acceptance to the buyer's offer to that seller may be more complex. For example, where Seller A submits an acceptance to the buyer's offer to Seller A, the negotiation facilitator system may require a deal to be made with the terms of the buyer's offer to Seller A. More preferably, the negotiation facilitator system may send a request for final offer message to all the sellers such that each seller, including Seller A, can submit one final offer, if desired. The negotiation facilitator system preferably requires each of the seller's final offer to be an improvement, such as by 10%, over the most current offer from that seller in order for that final offer to be validated by the negotiation facilitator system. The deal is preferably selected from the final offers submitted by each of the sellers.” Ephrati’s facilitator requests and receives an offer designated as final. That designation is information describing the concession/finality status of the first proposal. Ephrati marks the first offer as final and restores the pre counteroffer state when the subject rejects the second offer. Feeding the restored stored offer back to Faratin’s acquisition routine makes the identical first proposal a new operative first proposal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Ephrati in the teaching of Faratin, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, Faratin does not disclose but Ephrati discloses wherein in a case where the concession status information indicates that the first agreement candidate proposal is a final proposal and the negotiation subject does not agree with the second agreement candidate proposal, the agreement candidate proposal acquisition processing acquires an agreement candidate proposal same as the first agreement candidate proposal, as a new first agreement candidate proposal ([0054]-[0056] Once a counter offer is established, the buyer 102 may submit a counter offer to the counter offer of the seller 104. Once a bilateral negotiation is established, the offeree of each counter offer may accept, counter offer, or reject the counter offer. A rejection of a counter offer has the effect of the counter offer having never been made. A rejection returns the negotiation to the state prior to that counter offer being made and is in essence a request for another counter offer. In addition, an acceptance generally forms a deal and terminates the negotiation. Thus, the buyer and seller may accept, counter offer, or reject the counter offer from the other as well as retract its own counter offer prior to the other party responding thereto. [0068] However, the case where a seller submits an acceptance to the buyer's offer to that seller may be more complex. For example, where Seller A submits an acceptance to the buyer's offer to Seller A, the negotiation facilitator system may require a deal to be made with the terms of the buyer's offer to Seller A. More preferably, the negotiation facilitator system may send a request for final offer message to all the sellers such that each seller, including Seller A, can submit one final offer, if desired. The negotiation facilitator system preferably requires each of the seller's final offer to be an improvement, such as by 10%, over the most current offer from that seller in order for that final offer to be validated by the negotiation facilitator system. The deal is preferably selected from the final offers submitted by each of the sellers.” Ephrati’s facilitator requests and receives an offer designated as final. That designation is information describing the concession/finality status of the first proposal. Ephrati marks the first offer as final and restores the pre counteroffer state when the subject rejects the second offer. Feeding the restored stored offer back to Faratin’s acquisition routine makes the identical first proposal a new operative first proposal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Ephrati in the teaching of Faratin, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, Faratin does not disclose but Ephrati discloses input processing that receives an input of the concession status information from the negotiation subject ([0068] However, the case where a seller submits an acceptance to the buyer's offer to that seller may be more complex. For example, where Seller A submits an acceptance to the buyer's offer to Seller A, the negotiation facilitator system may require a deal to be made with the terms of the buyer's offer to Seller A. More preferably, the negotiation facilitator system may send a request for final offer message to all the sellers such that each seller, including Seller A, can submit one final offer, if desired. The negotiation facilitator system preferably requires each of the seller's final offer to be an improvement, such as by 10%, over the most current offer from that seller in order for that final offer to be validated by the negotiation facilitator system. The deal is preferably selected from the final offers submitted by each of the sellers.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Ephrati in the teaching of Faratin, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, Faratin does not disclose but Ephrati discloses wherein the input processing receives an input of information indicating the providing reason of the first agreement candidate proposal or information indicating that the first agreement candidate proposal is the final proposal, as the concession status information ([0068] However, the case where a seller submits an acceptance to the buyer's offer to that seller may be more complex. For example, where Seller A submits an acceptance to the buyer's offer to Seller A, the negotiation facilitator system may require a deal to be made with the terms of the buyer's offer to Seller A. More preferably, the negotiation facilitator system may send a request for final offer message to all the sellers such that each seller, including Seller A, can submit one final offer, if desired. The negotiation facilitator system preferably requires each of the seller's final offer to be an improvement, such as by 10%, over the most current offer from that seller in order for that final offer to be validated by the negotiation facilitator system. The deal is preferably selected from the final offers submitted by each of the sellers.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Ephrati in the teaching of Faratin, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, Faratin does not disclose but Huet discloses wherein the input processing receives an input of an instruction to switch the negotiation to a negotiation with an operator, from the negotiation subject ([0079] There are a variety of criteria that the conversational agent 228 can use to determine whether it can resolve the customer case. For example, the customer may request to be escalated to a live agent by asking something like "Can I talk to somebody real?" When the conversational agent 228 receives this query from the customer, the computer program can be coded to escalate the customer to a live agent. In one embodiment, the conversational agent can be programmed to make it harder or easier to contact a live agent.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Huet in the teaching of Faratin, in order to escalate the user to a live agent if predetermined criteria are met (Huet abstract).
As per claim 12, Faratin in view of Buffett, Huet and Ephrati discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Faratin discloses a negotiation as shown in claim 1. Faratin does not disclose but Huet further discloses wherein the input processing outputs information for recommending to input the concession status information and to continue the negotiation, in a case where the instruction is input by the negotiation subject ([0012] Escalating the customer to a live agent can include providing the live agent with at least a portion of the transcript of the textual conversation. The live agent can be provided with the at least a portion of the transcript of the textual conversation prior to the live agent being connected with the customer. The method can also include continuing to converse with the customer prior to connecting the customer with the live agent, giving time for the live agent to review the at least a portion of the transcript of the conversation and in paragraph 77, Huet output questions requesting additional information before completing the live agent transfer. The questions are information recommending that the user provide the requested input. Huet also keeps the automated interaction active before the live agent is connected. When applied to Faratin, the continuing interaction is the negotiation. Therefore, Huet detects the operator request, asks additional questions, and continues the automated conversation/negotiation before the transfer.)(please see claim 9 rejection for combination rationale).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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 at (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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights