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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 07/16/2026. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 have been amended. Claims 11-14 have been newly added. Therefore, claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
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 - 14 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 instance case, claims 1-8 and 11-14 are directed to a device (i.e. a machine). Claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e. a process). Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 9, analogous to independent claims 1 and 10 recites: An agreement determination method, comprising acquiring a divisible proposal provided by a first negotiator; notifying a second negotiator, which conducts negotiations with the first negotiator, of the divisible proposal; and determining whether or not the second negotiator makes a partial agreement on thecalculate a utility value for each part of the divisible proposal; based on the utility value for a first part of the divisible proposal being greater than a threshold, accept the first part. 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 an agreement determination, comprising acquiring a divisible proposal provided by a first negotiator; notifying a second negotiator, which conducts negotiations with the first negotiator, of the proposal; and determining whether or not the second negotiator makes a partial agreement on the 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 (independent claims recite for example, “An agreement determination method, comprising acquiring a divisible proposal provided by a first negotiator; notifying a second negotiator, which conducts negotiations with the first negotiator, of the proposal; and determining whether or not the second negotiator makes a partial agreement on the proposal.” Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of negotiation, agreement, determining and analyzing, 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)).
Further, dependent claims add additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) accept an input to specify an agreement for each part of the divisible proposal, while displaying the divisible proposal usable by the second negotiator for the negotiations; (claim 3) accept an input to cancel an agreed part of the divisible proposal, while displaying the divisible proposal usable by the second negotiator for the negotiations; (claim 4) hide a detail of an agreed part of the divisible proposal, while displaying the divisible proposal usable by the second negotiator for the negotiations; (claim 5) accept an input to specify whether or not to hide a detail of an agreed part of the divisible proposal, while displaying the divisible proposal usable by the second negotiator for the negotiations; (claim 6) acquire a counter proposal differs from the divisible proposal in regards to a non-agreed part; (claim 7) notify the first negotiator of the counter proposal regarding the non-agreed part; (claim 8) once the negotiations have been suspended, cause by the first negotiator for the negotiations and/or a second negotiator to display an agreed part of the divisible proposal and a non-agreed part, which is not the agreed part, of the divisible proposal; (claim 11) wherein the switch to manual negotiations comprises changing to a human negotiator; (claim 12) wherein based on the partial agreement being reached, present non-agreed parts of the divisible proposal to the human negotiator; (claim 13) to not switch to manual negotiations based on a present proposal being different from a previous proposal; (claim 14) generate display information based on the divisible proposal; display the display information, when pressed, hide display information corresponding to agreed parts of the divisible proposal; suspend the negotiations; corresponding to each part of the divisible proposal, accept the corresponding part of the divisible proposal, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, 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) agreement determination device; memory; processor; Artificial Intelligence (AI) negotiator (claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8) terminal devices; (claim 9) computer; (claim 10) non-transitory computer readable storage medium; computer; (claim 14) fold button; suspend negotiation button; partial agreement buttons. 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 or artificial intelligence, 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 1-14 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 2011/0264548 A1), hereinafter “Jain”, over Tran et al. (US 2020/0117690 A1), hereinafter “Tran”.
Regarding Claim 1, Jain teaches An agreement determination device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (Jain, para 0007, teaches an architecture that can facilitate computer-assisted haggling and/or negotiation between multiple parties; See at least Jain, Figure 13 and para 0028, teaches the computing environment including processor; Jain, para 0090, teaches memory);
acquire a divisible proposal provided by a first negotiator; (See at least Jain Abstract, teaches seller and buyer proposals; Jain, para 0020, teaches negotiate transaction for multiple items);
notify a second negotiator, which conducts negotiations with the first negotiator, of the divisible proposal; and (See at least Jain, Figure 5, teaches multiple negotiators (Examiner notes sellers and buyers; See para 0058, notification from the platform owner),
determine whether or not the second negotiator makes a ... agreement on the proposal, wherein the second negotiator is configured to make the ... agreement based on only a ... of the divisible proposal being acceptable, (Jain, para 0069, Buyer sees the new desirable sell price and agrees to it; Jain, Figure 5, teaches multiple negotiators);
based on determining the second negotiator has made the ... agreement, perform at least one of generating a counter proposal, suspending the negotiations, or switching to manual negotiations, (See at least Jain, para 0055, the desirable sell price is acceptable to the buyer she can manually accept it .. If the desirable sell price is not accepted by buyer, then whatever price she entered for the desirable buy price can be communicated to the seller);
wherein at least one of the first negotiator and the second negotiator is an (See at least Jain, Figure 5, teaches multiple negotiators);
calculate a utility value for each part of the divisible proposal; based on the utility value for a first part of the divisible proposal being greater than a threshold, accept the first part (See at least Jain, para 0011, a price provided in a proposal does not exceed a progressive price percentage (PPP), then the proposal may be rejected. The PPP can be fixed or be a dynamic value such as, e.g., 25%. Examiner notes various calculations and thresholds are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art).
Yet Jain does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Tran teaches partial agreement ...part ... Artificial Intelligence (Al) negotiator, wherein the Al negotiator is configured to (See at least Tran, para 0628, teaches installment sales of contract: an installment sales contract requires or authorizes 1) delivery in separate lots 2) to be separately accepted; generally, the buyer has the right to reject an installment only where there is a substantial impairment in that installment that cannot be cured; Tran, para 0394, teaches electronic agents that carry out transactions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jain with partial agreement ... part ... Artificial Intelligence (Al) negotiator, wherein the Al negotiator is configured as taught by Tran with the motivation for performing contract negotiations among IOT devices (Tran, para 0881). The Jain invention now incorporating the Tran invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to
accept an input to specify an agreement for each part of the divisible proposal, while displaying the divisible proposal on a terminal device usable by the second negotiator for the negotiations (See at least Jain, para 0008, teaches in most cases, a buyer or seller (Examiner notes negotiators) associated with one of the proxies can withdraw or accept any open proposal at any time; Jain, para 0097, teaches input devices, e.g., a keyboard; para 0098, teaches monitor or other display device).
Regarding Claim 3, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to accept an input to cancel an agreed part of the divisible proposal, while displaying the divisible proposal on a terminal device usable by the second negotiator for the negotiations (See at least Jain, para 0045, teaches the proposal can be withdrawn at any time by way of the revoke proposal(s) feature. The revoke proposal(s) feature can be employed to revoke all proposals, revoke all counteroffers, or only one or certain ones of the proposals. Jain, para 0097, teaches input devices, e.g., a keyboard; para 0098, teaches monitor or other display device).
Regarding Claim 4, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to hide a detail of an agreed part of the divisible proposal, while displaying the divisible proposal on a terminal device usable by the second negotiator for the negotiations (See at least Jain, para 0046, teaches a hide/show proposals feature; Jain, para 0097, teaches input devices, e.g., a keyboard; para 0098, teaches monitor or other display device).
Regarding Claim 5, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to accept an input to specify whether or not to hide a detail of an agreed part of the divisible proposal, while displaying the divisible proposal on a terminal device usable by the second negotiator for the negotiations (See at least Jain, para 0046, teaches a hide/show proposals feature; Jain, para 0097, teaches input devices, e.g., a keyboard; para 0098, teaches monitor or other display device).
Regarding Claim 6, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device according to claim 1, the counter proposal differs from the divisible proposal in regards to a non-agreed part (Counter offers are taught throughout Jain, see at least Jain para 0043, teaches counteroffer can be accompanied by an explanation that, e.g., explains why the current proposal price is inadequate; Jain, para 0097, teaches input devices, e.g., a keyboard; para 0098, teaches monitor or other display device).
Regarding Claim 7, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to notify the first negotiator of the counter proposal regarding the non-agreed part (Counter offers are taught throughout Jain, see at least Jain para 0043, teaches counteroffer (e.g., sent by way of the send proposal feature); See at least Jain, Figure 5, teaches multiple negotiators (Examiner notes sellers and buyers; See para 0058, notification from the platform owner).
Regarding Claim 8, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device according to claim 1, wherein once the negotiations have been suspended, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause at least one of a first terminal device usable by the first negotiator for the negotiations and/or a second terminal device usable by the second negotiator to display an agreed part of the divisible proposal and a non-agreed part, which is not the agreed part, of the divisible proposal (See at least Jain, Figure 5, teaches multiple negotiators (Examiner notes sellers and buyers); Examiner notes agreeing or disagreeing (counteroffer or withdraw) to proposals is taught throughout Jain, see at least Jain, para 0069, teaches Buyer sees the new desirable sell price and agrees to it; Jain, para 0098, teaches monitor or other display device).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the claims are an obvious variant to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 9 recites a method, see at least Jain, para 0080, teaching methods. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program executed by a computer. See at least Jain, Figure 13 teaching the computing environment and Jain, para 0090, teaches computer storage media and Tran, para 0865, teaches non-transitory, machine readable medium.
Regarding Claim 11, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device of claim 1, wherein the switch to manual negotiations comprises changing the Al negotiator to a human negotiator (Jain, para 0055, teaches acceptable to the buyer she (Examiner notes human) can manually accept it).
Regarding Claim 12, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device of claim 11, wherein based on the partial agreement being reached, the at least one processor is further configured to present non-agreed parts of the divisible proposal to the human negotiator (Jain, para 0055, teaches acceptable to the buyer she (Examiner notes human) can manually accept it).
Regarding Claim 13, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to not switch to manual negotiations based on a present proposal being different from a previous proposal (Jain, para 0055, teaches acceptable to the buyer she (Examiner notes human) can manually accept it; Jain, para 0086, different item in lieu of the seller's item).
Regarding Claim 14, Jain, now incorporating Tran, teaches The agreement determination device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate display information based on the divisible proposal; display a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display the display information, (Jain, para 0097, teaches input devices, e.g., a keyboard; para 0098, teaches monitor or other display device);
wherein the GUI comprises: a fold button configured to, when pressed, hide display information corresponding to agreed parts of the divisible proposal; a suspend negotiation button configured to, when pressed, suspend the negotiations; a plurality of partial agreement buttons corresponding to each part of the divisible proposal configured to, when pressed, accept the corresponding part of the divisible proposal (Jain, para 0046, teaches the hide/show proposals feature can be employed; Jain, para 0040, teaches a button, a dialog box, a radio button, a menu, a form, a link to other data and the like. Examiner notes various buttons are certainly known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Examiner notes that the data identifying the button is simply a label for the data and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of information) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).
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:
JP 6510624B2 - negotiation of one or more business agreements.
Applicant is advised to review additional references supplied on the PTO-892 as to the state of the art of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejection in light of the most recent claim amendments and maintains the 101 rejection. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive.
With respect to the abstract idea, the claimed invention falls within at least abstract groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes as explained in the above 101 analysis. Further, Examiner respectfully notes, Applicant appears to be confusing the additional elements (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI) negotiator) under Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas. The additional elements are analyzed in Step 2A: Prong Two and Step 2B of the 101 analysis. With respect to Applicant’s remarks on integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computing elements are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing or artificial intelligence, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Examiner has reviewed Applicants claims and specification and has found only generic computing elements used in their ordinary capacity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea; the computer elements merely add 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). Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, the claims do not affect an improvement in any
other technology or technical field. The specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer(s). Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection with respect to these and all depending claims unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. Examiner has updated the rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments with the Jain and Tran references. With respect to Applicant’s remarks on Tran (page 11), and the limitation: “determine whether or not the second negotiator makes a partial agreement on the proposal”, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s remarks.
As an initial matter, it is a combination of Jain and Tran that teaches the limitations, see above 103 rejection. Further, Jain, Figure 5, teaches multiple negotiators (Examiner notes sellers and buyers; See para 0058, notification from the platform owner. Jain, para 0069, Buyer sees the new desirable sell price and agrees to it. Tran is relied on to solely teach “partial”, see at least Tran, para 0628, teaches to be separately accepted; generally, the buyer has the right to reject an installment where there is a substantial impairment in that installment that cannot be cured. Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 103 rejections for all claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights