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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 should conclude with a colon (comprising:). Line 2 should conclude with a semicolon (; and). Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 9), a device (Claim 1), and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with executable instructions (Claim 10), thus Claims 1-10 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 1):
in conducting a negotiation with a negotiator which is a counterparty, acquire a proposal provided by the negotiator, wherein the proposal includes a delivery quantity of commodities with a delivery deadline;
determine, based on the proposal, a unit size of the delivery quantity of the commodities, wherein the unit size is used to adjust the delivery deadline.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) in the form of reviewing proposals and making determinations. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of concepts performed in the human mind which represents the abstract idea of mental processes. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for reviewing a proposal in order to determine a delivery deadline which could be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper. For example, a user could, without the use of a computer, determine a unit size of a delivery quantity (the delivery quantity being included in the proposal), and then use that information to determine an adjusted delivery time.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
at least one memory and/or non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions/program; and
at least one processor, computer, and/or a negotiation device configured to execute the instructions/program.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0019]; [0020]; [0054]; [0090], throughout the specification, the computer components are only described in general, generic terms at a high level of generality). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, 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 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-8 recite further elements related to the proposal, unit quantity determination, and deadline determination steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the unit size based on a largest common divisor of a union of a set of the delivery quantity agreed before the negotiation and a set of the delivery quantity included in the proposal”, The additional steps are part of the abstract idea and merely adding that acquisition is performed by the processor executing the instructions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Additionally, these claim limitations are drawn to mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations). Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of mathematical formulas, equations, and/or calculations which represents the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the unit size based on the largest common divisor and the largest delivery quantity among the union”, The additional steps are part of the abstract idea and merely adding that acquisition is performed by the processor executing the instructions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Additionally, these claim limitations are drawn to mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations). Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of mathematical formulas, equations, and/or calculations which represents the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine, as an alternative to the proposal, a counter proposal in which plural delivery quantities of the commodities according to the unit size and respective delivery deadlines for the plural delivery quantities are at least specified”, which specifies further steps related to determining a unit size and deadline, but does not make the claims any less abstract. The additional steps are part of the abstract idea and merely adding that acquisition is performed by the processor executing the instructions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the determined unit size is smaller than a default unit size determined before the negotiation”, which specifies further steps related to determining a unit size and deadline, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the default unit size is defined by at least one of SPQ, MOQ, and/or SNP”, which specifies further steps related to determining a unit size and deadline, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the negotiator is a supplier supplying the commodities”, which specifies types of negotiators, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the proposal in which the delivery quantity set regardless of a default unit size determined before the negotiation is specified”, which specifies further steps related to determining a unit size and deadline, but does not make the claims any less abstract. The additional steps are part of the abstract idea and merely adding that acquisition is performed by the processor executing the instructions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-8 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to Claim 8, the language is unclear and confusing. For example, the phrase “the delivery quantity set regardless” is unclear. For example, it is unclear if there is material missing between “quantity” and “set” or between “set” and “regardless” (or another issue). It is unclear what is meant by “default unit size determined before the negotiation is specified”. For example, it is unclear to what “is specified” refers (default unit size, the negotiation, something else). Applicant should clarify the language to avoid any further 35 USC § 112(b) and/or interpretation issues.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (Pub. No. US 2002/0152133 A1) in view of Kiuchi et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0335370 A1).
In regards to Claims 1, 9, and 10, King discloses:
A negotiation method/system comprising:
at least one memory/non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions, and at least one processor/computer/device configured to execute the instructions to: (at least [0068]-[0071])
in conducting a negotiation with a negotiator which is a counterparty, acquire a proposal provided by the negotiator, wherein the proposal includes a delivery quantity of commodities with a delivery deadline; (Abstract; [0080]; [0133], a proposal is acquired form a buyer (negotiator, counterparty) including a delivery quantity of commodities with a delivery deadline (Delivery date))
Additionally, King discloses different delivery units of a delivery quantity based on a proposal ([0134], “…partial delivery on the requested date and a second delivery later in time…”). King does not explicitly disclose that the delivery units are used to adjust the delivery deadline, however, Kiuchi teaches:
determine a unit size of the delivery quantity of the commodities, wherein the unit size is used to adjust the delivery deadline (Fig. 4; [0043]; [0074], calculates “…a proportion of a delivery quantity “3” to an order quantity “10”…”, as seen in Fig. 4, the order quantity (comparable to the delivery quantity in applicant’s claims, the order quantity represents the entire quantity to be delivered) is broken into delivery quantities (comparable to the unit sizes in applicant’s claims, delivery quantities in Kiuchi represents the sizes (# of units) of each partial delivery), and at least one delivery quantity (unit size) has an updated delivery date (deadline), form 2018/6/10 to 2018/6/16)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of King so as to have included determine a unit size of the delivery quantity of the commodities, wherein the unit size is used to adjust the delivery deadline, as taught by Kiuchi.
King discloses a “base” method/system for negotiating commodity deliveries including planning quantities and deadlines, as shown above. Kiuchi teaches a comparable method/system for planning quantities and deadlines for commodity procurement deliveries, as shown above. Kiuchi also teaches an embodiment in which a unit size of the delivery quantity of the commodities is determined and wherein the unit size is used to adjust the delivery deadline, as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of determine a unit size of the delivery quantity of the commodities, wherein the unit size is used to adjust the delivery deadline to King could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.")
In regards to Claim 4, King discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine, as an alternative to the proposal, a counter proposal in which plural delivery quantities of the commodities according to the unit size and respective delivery deadlines for the plural delivery quantities are at least specified ([0134], a counter proposal can be received which specifies plural deliveries and delivery dates)
In regards to Claim 7, King discloses:
wherein the negotiator is a supplier supplying the commodities ([0082]; etc., the supplier is a negotiator)
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Kiuchi in further view of Wikipedia (Greatest common divisor).
In regards to Claim 2, King/Kiuchi discloses the above method/system for determining unit sizes of a delivery during negotiations. Additionally, Kiuchi teaches the use of historical order data (including from the same supplier and same item) and current order data ([0078], “previous order quantity” from the same supplier would indicate a previously agreed upon quantity, “current order quantity” would be comparable to a currently requested/proposed quantity, although the examples in Kiuchi describe different quantities, there is no indication that the “change quantity” must be different, for example, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a previous order quantity and a current order quantity could be the same, if the buyer orders the same quantity)
King/Kiuchi does not explicitly disclose the use of a largest common divisor of a union of a set, but Wikipedia teaches the known mathematical concept of determining largest common divisors of a union of a set of numbers (see entire article, demonstrating that determining largest common divisors of a union of a set of numbers was known as far back as 2001)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of King/Kiuchi so as to have included the known mathematical techniques taught by Wikipedia in order to provide the use of a known mathematical technique in performing the calculations (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."), since doing so could be performed readily and easily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results. Further, One of ordinary skill would understand how to apply the largest common divisor to the “previous order quantity” and the “current order quantity” when they are the same (“change quantity” is null, no change), because the largest common divisor would be the same number.
In regards to Claim 3, King/Kiuchi discloses the above method/system for determining unit sizes of a delivery during negotiations. Additionally, Kiuchi teaches the use of historical order data (including from the same supplier and same item) and current order data ([0078], “previous order quantity” from the same supplier would indicate a previously agreed upon quantity, “current order quantity” would be comparable to a currently requested/proposed quantity, although the examples in Kiuchi describe different quantities, there is no indication that the “change quantity” must be different, for example, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a previous order quantity and a current order quantity could be the same, if the buyer orders the same quantity)
King/Kiuchi does not explicitly disclose the use of a largest common divisor of a union of a set, but Wikipedia teaches the known mathematical concept of determining largest common divisors of a union of a set of numbers (see entire article, demonstrating that determining largest common divisors of a union of a set of numbers was known as far back as 2001)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of King/Kiuchi so as to have included the known mathematical techniques taught by Wikipedia in order to provide the use of a known mathematical technique in performing the calculations (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."), since doing so could be performed readily and easily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results.
King/Kiuchi does not explicitly disclose the use of a largest common divisor of a union of a set and the largest delivery quantity, however, one of ordinary skill would understand how to apply the largest common divisor and the largest quantity to the “previous order quantity” and the “current order quantity” when they are the same (“change quantity” is null, no change), because the largest common divisor and the largest quantity would be the same number.
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Kiuchi in further view of Wei et al. (KR 102360948 B1).
In regards to Claim 5, King/Kiuchi discloses the above method/system for determining unit sizes of a delivery during negotiations. King/Kiuchi does not explicitly disclose the use of a default unit size determined before a negotiation, but Wei teaches:
wherein the determined unit size is smaller than a default unit size determined before the negotiation (page 14, lines 5-16, a unit size (NEW MOQ) is determined based on a predetermined default unit size (OLD MOQ) that can be used for negotiations, the NEW MOQ is smaller than the default/OLD MOQ)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of King/Kiuchi so as to have included wherein the determined unit size is smaller than a default unit size determined before the negotiation, as taught by Wei in order to ensure that the default unit size is not too excessive or restrictive (Wei, page 14, lines 5-16; etc.).
In regards to Claim 6, King/Kiuchi discloses the above method/system for determining unit sizes of a delivery during negotiations. King/Kiuchi does not explicitly disclose the use of a default unit size determined before a negotiation, but Wei teaches:
wherein the default unit size is defined by at least one of SPQ, MOQ, and/or SNP (page 14, lines 5-16, a unit size (NEW MOQ) is determined based on a predetermined default unit size (OLD MOQ) that can be used for negotiations, the NEW MOQ is smaller than the default/OLD MOQ)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of King/Kiuchi so as to have included wherein the default unit size is defined by at least one of SPQ, MOQ, and/or SNP, as taught by Wei in order to ensure that the default unit size is not too excessive or restrictive (Wei, page 14, lines 5-16; etc.).
In regards to Claim 8, King/Kiuchi/Wei discloses the above method/system in which default unit sizes/quantities can be agreed upon beforehand and used to determine unit sizes/quantities in negotiations (see rejections of Claim 5 and 6, above).
Additionally, King discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the proposal in which the delivery quantity set regardless of [a preset or existing criteria] (see at least [0080]; [0084]; [0172], auto-accept allows a user to set tolerances and acceptable ranges, this indicates that proposals can be acquired without regard for criteria, if the items for those criteria fall within the ranges or tolerances).
Additional Prior Art Identified but not Relied Upon
Oya et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0211979 A1). Discloses determination of delivery quantities and dates that satisfy customer criteria (see at least Abstract; [0046]; 0047]; [0051]-[0060]).
Westscott et al. (Pub. No. US 2003/0200150 A1). Discloses a negotiation system/method, including delivery quantities and dates, and setting delivery dates for portions of the overall quantity (unit deliveries) (see at least Abstract; [0028]; [0042]; [0076]; Claim 13; Claim 16; Claim 22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 3629
April 4, 2026 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights