DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to the application filed on April 22, 2025. Claims 1-10 are pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 9 and 10 are independent claims.
Original Claims 1-10 are originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03.
The present application (U.S. App. No. 19/185,480), which claims foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2024-076391, is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ) since both applications were filed after March 16, 2013.
Examiner notes that this U.S. patent application (U.S. App. No. 18/624,405) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0403917 of Tetsuro ISHII et al. (hereinafter “Ishii”).
Priority/Benefit Claim
This U.S. patent application (U.S. App. No. 19/185,480) claims foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2024-076391, which was filed on May 9, 2024 and which published under Japanese publication number: JP 2025171251 A1. A certification document for Japanese Patent Application No. 2024-076391 has been electronically received at the USPTO on 5/26/2025. See MPEP § 215 for “a copy of the original foreign application with a certification by the patent office of the foreign country in which it was filed”. No English translation has been received.
No U.S. domestic benefit has been asserted in this application.
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes CPC classifications listed below:
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/10 • Office automation
G06Q 10/101 •• Collaborative creation, e.g. joint development of products or services
G06Q 10/103 •• Workflow collaboration or project management
G06Q 30/00 Commerce
G06Q 30/06 . Buying, selling or leasing transactions
G06Q 30/0601 . . Electronic shopping [e-shopping]
G06Q 30/0611 . . . {Request for offers or quotes}
G06Q 30/0633 . . . {Managing shopping lists, e.g. compiling or processing purchase
lists (shipping orders G06Q 10/083; order filling G06Q 10/087)}
G06Q 30/0635 . . . . {replenishment orders; recurring orders}
G06Q 50/00 Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors
G06Q 50/10 . Services
G06Q 50/18 . . Legal services
G06Q 50/188 . . . {Electronic negotiation}
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is notified of 37 C.F.R. 1.56, which states that each inventor named in the application has a duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Applicant is notified of MPEP § 2001.06(b): “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
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 non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-10 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner notes that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0403917 (“Ishii”), as noted below, corresponds to this patent application.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-10 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite organization or management of a negotiation between parties (i.e., “first negotiator” and “second negotiator”) considering different proposals (i.e., “base proposal”, “first proposal” and “second proposal”) that have offered/proposed by the parties (e.g., to each other during the negotiation), and the negotiation organization/management including managing a current status or a current state of the proposals (e.g., rejected, tentatively agreed, “more favorable”, better, etc.) with respect to the parties in the negotiation (e.g., such as regarding terms and/or conditions in the proposals) {e.g., such as for “reducing the burden of the next negotiations” per Ishii at ¶ [0006] such as when “Once the negotiations have broken down, the next negotiations will be substantially started … from the state prior to the negotiations” per Ishii at ¶ [0005]}, as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): (only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a device comprising at least one memory configured to store instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions; (only Claims 3 and 5) the processor being configured to execute the instructions to cause a terminal device to display and to receive an input; (only Claim 4) the processor being configured to execute the instructions to cause first and second terminal devices to display; (only Claim 9) “executed by a computer”; (only Claim 10) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program executed by a computer, the program causing the computer to perform; and each of Applicant’s recited steps/operations of “acquiring” or “acquire”, “to receive”, and “to display”. However, organizing or managing a negotiation between parties including managing the current status or state of proposals being offered/considered in the negotiation, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and/or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships/interactions between people. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)-(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of negotiation management/organization including managing the current status/state of proposals being offered or considered during negotiation. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Although the claims require “upon determining that the second proposal is more favorable…than a base proposal” (e.g., a lower cost being better/“more favorable” as numerically compared to a higher cost of a base proposal), this technique encompasses one or more mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network environment, such as illustrated in Figures 1 and 11 of Applicant’s drawings showing a network 3, user terminal devices 2A, 2B and a computing device 1 performing basic functions of a computer} and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of “acquiring” or “acquire”, “to receive” and “to display”, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Examiner notes that Claim 9 is drawn to a method; however, the recited method steps themselves do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are recited as being performed by any computer or processing device since recited use of a computer to execute a method (see preamble of Claim 9) encompasses a situation where a computer does no more than assist/help a person perform such recited steps/processes or thoughts when the person is using the computer. Even if a computer/machine was implied via Applicant’s preamble in Claim 9, Applicant’s method limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network environment, such as illustrated in Figures 1 and 11 of Applicant’s drawings showing a network 3, user terminal devices 2A, 2B and a computing device 1 performing basic functions of a computer}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant pre-solution activity including Applicant’s recited operation/process of “acquiring”, as further explained below. Furthermore, Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claim 1 are performed by Applicant’s generically recited “at least one processor” while Claim 10 limitations are performed by Applicant’s generically recited “a computer”, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network environment, such as illustrated in Figures 1 and 11 of Applicant’s drawings showing a network 3, user terminal devices 2A, 2B and a computing device 1 performing basic functions of a computer}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of “acquire”, “to receive” and “to display”, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: (only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a device comprising at least one memory configured to store instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions; (only Claims 3 and 5) the processor being configured to execute the instructions to cause a terminal device to display and to receive an input; (only Claim 4) the processor being configured to execute the instructions to cause first and second terminal devices to display; (only Claim 9) “executed by a computer”; (only Claim 10) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program executed by a computer, the program causing the computer to perform; and each of Applicant’s recited steps/operations of “acquiring” or “acquire”, “to receive”, and “to display”. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of “acquiring” or “acquire”, “to receive”, and “to display” — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide generic computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of “acquiring” or “acquire”, “to receive”, and “to display”, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of “acquiring” or “acquire” and “to receive” encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of “acquiring” and “acquire” encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); each of the steps of determining encompasses a simple mathematical function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., Bilski, Freddie Mac, and In re Abele}; and each of the steps of “to display” encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. Examiner notes it may be worth being mindful of the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph(s) of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form(s) the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under America Invents Act (AIA ) 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0152133 of King et al. (hereinafter “King”).
Regarding Claim 1, King discloses an agreement determination device comprising at least one memory configured to store instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a second proposal provided by a second negotiator as an alternative to a first proposal provided by a first negotiator who conducts a negotiation with the second negotiator (e.g., 2nd negotiator/supplier offers a 2nd proposal as a counter proposal to a 1st proposal submitted by a 1st negotiator/buyer — “The supplier responds (automatically or manually) by either agreeing with all of the line items (e.g., product, quantity, and price), creating a counter proposal (e.g., different product, different quantity, or different delivery date), or rejecting all of the line items” —King at ¶ [0082]; King at ¶¶ [0134]–[0136]; and Figures 10-13 of King); and
upon determining that the second proposal is more favorable for the first negotiator than a base proposal on which the negotiation is based, determine that the second proposal is a tentative agreement proposal which is tentatively agreed between the first negotiator and the second negotiator (e.g., if the 2nd proposal (the counter proposal made by the 2nd negotiator/supplier) is more favorable than a base proposal, determine the 2nd proposal to be a tentative agreement between the 1st and 2nd negotiators — “… the buyer either accepts the whole response, accepts some of the line items and rejects others, or restarts…. If accepted by the buyer, a Confirm or Create Order message is created … marketplace sends the supplier a "Confirm Order" … message…. notification of Confirm Order is sent to each supplier” and “Once the Confirm Order message is received by the supplier, the supplier can accept the order” —King ¶¶ [0084]–[0085]; King at ¶¶ [0084]–[0085] and [0134]–[0136]; and Figures 10-13 of King). Examiner notes content of each proposal appears to depend on each negotiator’s subjective desire and, therefore, the content of each proposal appears to be nonfunctional and merely material descriptive of a negotiator’s desire as embodied in a proposal and, as currently recited, independent of any supporting computerized system/device currently recited in view of MPEP § 2111.04; also see Precedential PTAB Decision Ex Parte Schulhauser et al. (April 28, 2016), pages 5-10, regarding contingent limitations.
Regarding Claim 2, King discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine, based on the base proposal and the second proposal, whether or not the second proposal is more favorable for the first negotiator than the base proposal (e.g., “marketplace 10 automates each sub process to minimize involvement by people…. provide automated reconciliation across the source order to cash process, reconciliation of prices, quantities, materials…, reconciliation of prices, quantities, materials for price and availability requests… and reconciliation requests for quotes with contracts” —King at ¶ [0197]; “buyer has options to Auto-Submit an order and also to Auto-Accept the order. The Auto-Submit and Auto-Accept options may be used in combination or individually in order to expedite processing of orders” —King at ¶ [0092]; and King at ¶¶ [0084]–[0085] and [0134]–[0136]).
Regarding Claim 3, King discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause a terminal device usable by the first negotiator in the negotiation to display the base proposal and the second proposal, and receive an input which specifies whether or not the second proposal is more favorable for the first negotiator than the base proposal (e.g., King at ¶¶ [0068]–[0069], [0080], [0084]–[0085] and [0134]–[0136]).
Regarding Claim 4, King discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein once the negotiation is suspended, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause a first terminal device usable in the negotiation by the first negotiator and a second terminal device usable in the negotiation by the second negotiator to display the tentative agreement proposal, respectively (e.g., King at ¶¶ [0068]–[0069], [0080], [0084]–[0085] and [0134]–[0136]).
Regarding Claim 5, King discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein once the negotiation is suspended, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause a terminal device usable in the negotiation by the second negotiator to display the tentative agreement proposal and receive an input which specifies whether or not the tentative agreement proposal is acceptable (e.g., Figures 10-13 of King; and King at ¶¶ [0084]–[0085], [0109] and [0134]–[0136]).
Regarding Claim 6, King discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein, if there are one or more tentative agreement proposals, the latest tentative agreement proposal is set as the base proposal (e.g., King at ¶¶ [0080], [0084]–[0085], [0109], [0125] and [0134]–[0136])), and wherein, if there is no tentative agreement proposal, an agreed or tentatively agreed proposal before the negotiation is set as the base proposal (e.g., King at ¶¶ [0080], [0084]–[0085], [0109], [0125] and [0134]–[0136]).
Regarding Claim 7, King discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein, upon determining that the first negotiator has disagreed on the second proposal, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the second proposal is the tentative agreement proposal (e.g., King at ¶¶ [0084]–[0085], [0109] and [0134]–[0136]; and Figures 10-13 of King).
Regarding Claim 8, King discloses the device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the second proposal is more favorable for the first negotiator than the base proposal, based on a first utility on an assumption that the base proposal is employed and a second utility on an assumption that the second proposal is employed (e.g., “marketplace 10 automates each sub process to minimize involvement by people…. provide automated reconciliation across the source order to cash process, reconciliation of prices, quantities, materials…, reconciliation of prices, quantities, materials for price and availability requests… and reconciliation requests for quotes with contracts” —King at ¶ [0197]; “buyer has options to Auto-Submit an order and also to Auto-Accept the order. The Auto-Submit and Auto-Accept options may be used in combination or individually in order to expedite processing of orders” —King at ¶ [0092]; and King at ¶¶ [0084]–[0085] and [0134]–[0136]).
Regarding Claim 9, King discloses an agreement determination method executed by a computer (e.g., Figures 1, 50(A) and 50(B) of King) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above regarding Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, King discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program executed by a computer, the program causing the computer (e.g., Figures 1, 50(A) and 50(B) of King) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0335370 of KIUCHI et al. (hereinafter “Kiuchi”) for “procurement work assistance system capable of formulating an order plan including an optimum supplier that satisfies a procurement plan” —Kiuchi at ¶ [0007]; and “generating the procurement plan information 126 in consideration of market conditions of a supply chain” —Kiuchi at ¶ [0109].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0292535 of ANDO et al. (hereinafter “Ando ‘535’) which was listed in Applicant’s IDS dated 4/22/2025.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0117690 of Tran et al. (hereinafter “Tran”)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0264548 of Kamal Jain (hereinafter “Jain”) for “an architecture that … facilitate computer-assisted haggling and/or negotiation between multiple parties simultaneously…. the architecture… employed to configure …buyer proxies to negotiation purchases of an item at a respective desirable seller price. In addition, …sell proxies… negotiate sales of an item at respective desirable sell prices. Typically, the buyer proxies communicate only with seller proxies and vice versa. For example, the various proxies can negotiate by way of proposals transmitted between them” —Jain at ¶ [0007]; and “the negotiations (e.g., proposals such as offers and counteroffers) between the various proxies can be required to be progressive” —Jain at ¶ [0011];
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0024488 of Jonathan Romley (hereinafter “Romley”) for “Referring to FIG. 5, a graphical user interface 500 presented in a Web page provides various interactive elements, such as selectable buttons 502-510, that allow users to create messages, respond to messages or access (e.g., view, modify) various objects stored in the database. Examples might include buttons that create response messages, buttons that allow users to modify offer details or to provide comments on an offer, buttons that allow users to reject the offer, buttons that allow users to create a new offer (counter offer), etc. In some embodiments, users who are relevant to the offer can communicate with each other to negotiate or discuss on terms and conditions of the offer. For example, if an agent receives an offer to purchase an appearance of an artist from a buyer, the agent may inform a manager and the artist about the offer. In a typical situation, after all the relevant users approve the offer, the offer can be accepted. Likewise, any additions or changes made in the received offer may need approval from all or some of the relevant users. Examples of functionality of certain buttons now will be given for certain entity types or users” —Romley at ¶ [0073].1
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0085362 of Lin et al. (hereinafter “Lin”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0200150 of Westcott et al. (hereinafter “Westcott”) for “facilitating negotiations to purchase materials between buyers and sellers in a supply chain…. reduces the inventory of materials that a buyer has to carry until the materials can be used to build a product. For example…, a manufacturer can order materials from numerous suppliers. Suppliers can access requisitions for the materials stored in a database that may include a quantity, a price, and delivery dates” —Westcott at ¶ [0007]; “Each supplier reviews a requisition and determines if it can meet the manufacturer's requirements in terms of… quantity, price, and delivery time. A supplier may agree to all of the terms of manufacturer's requisition if it has the available capacity. If a supplier cannot meet the manufacturer's requirements, the supplier may propose an alternate supply schedule or alternative price” —Westcott at ¶ [0008]; “The manufacturer can accept a supplier's alternate schedule or propose a different schedule. Negotiations continue using the system… until an agreement has been reached with each supplier. The suppliers can also place requisitions to their suppliers to obtain materials…” —Westcott at ¶ [0009]; “Once all of the material requirements have been determined and the suppliers have been selected, each supplier 103 is notified that manufacturer 102 has submitted a requisition for materials to that supplier. The notifications can, for example, be in the form of e-mail messages, faxes, phone calls, or any other type of messages to each of suppliers 103. Suppliers 103 can access details about the requisitions from databases that reside on IWBCE 108. For example, a supplier 103 can download the requisition information onto a web browser from a web server associated with IWBCE 108. Suppliers 103 can agree to deliver the materials as requested or enter different quantities, prices, and/or delivery dates for the materials” —Westcott at ¶ [0025].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0087534 of Blackman et al. (hereinafter “Blackman”) for “An agreement management system for organizing information around agreements and chains of agreements. The system includes an agreement database and notes database for storing agreements and information directly related to those agreements. The system further includes a set of forms for use in negotiating an agreement, modifying an existing agreement and managing the performance of an existing agreement. The system supports agreement chains which permit the linking of pairs of agreements such that the customer of one of the linked agreements is a supplier to a customer of another of the linked agreements. Templates that permit the simple reuse of agreement chains are also supported by the system….” —Abstract of Blackman.
U.S. Patent No. 6,502,113 of Crawford et al. (hereinafter “Crawford”) for “Negotiation Manager Incorporating Clause Modification And Markers For Tracking Negotiation Progress” —Title of Crawford.1
International Publication No. WO 2021/024414 A1 of Ando et al. (hereinafter “Ando ‘414”), which was listed in Applicant’s IDS dated 4/22/2025.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights