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
This action is in response to papers filed on 7/9/2026.
Claims 1 and 8-10 have been amended.
Claim 2-6 have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are pending.
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 and 7-10 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 and 7-10 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; and
determine, based on a largest common divisor of a union of (i) a set of the delivery quantity corresponding to plural installments agreed before the negotiation, and (ii) a set of the delivery quantity corresponding to plural installments included in the proposal, a unit size of the delivery quantity of the commodities, wherein the unit size is used to adjust the delivery deadline1; and
determine, as an alternative to the proposal, a counter proposal in which plural delivery quantities of the commodities according to the determined unit size and respective delivery deadlines for the plural delivery quantities are at least specified, wherein the determined unit size is smaller than a default unit size determined before the negotiation, and the default unit size is defined by at least one of SPQ, MOQ, and/or SNP2.
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.
Additionally, claim limitations of determine, based on a largest common divisor of a union of (i) a set of the delivery quantity corresponding to plural installments agreed before the negotiation, and (ii) a set of the delivery quantity corresponding to plural installments included in the proposal, a unit size of the delivery quantity of the commodities, wherein the unit size is used to adjust the delivery deadline, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations1. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations which represents the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, these limitations merely recites a process for using mathematical relationships (unions of data) to determine quantities.
1 These elements were previously addressed in the rejections of cancelled Claims 2 and 3 in the previous office action, which explains why these elements do not make the claims eligible and that they represent mathematical concepts.
2 These elements were previously addressed in the rejections of cancelled Claims 4-6 in the previous office action, which explains why these elements do not make the claims eligible or provide an inventive concept.
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 7 and 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 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 7 and 8 are ineligible.
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, 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 further view of Wei et al. (KR 102360948 B1) in further view of Wikipedia (Greatest common divisor).
In regard 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 from a buyer (negotiator, counterparty) including a delivery quantity of commodities with a delivery deadline (Delivery date))
determine, as an alternative to the proposal, a counter proposal in which plural delivery quantities of the commodities according to the determined 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)
Additionally, King discloses different delivery units (installments) of a delivery quantity based on a proposal ([0134], “…partial delivery on the requested date and a second delivery later in time…”) and plural delivery installments based on a proposal ([0134], a counter proposal can be received which specifies plural deliveries and delivery dates). King does not explicitly disclose that the delivery units are used to adjust the delivery deadline, however, Kiuchi teaches:
Determine based on delivery quantity corresponding to plural installments, 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.")
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)
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 determined unit size is smaller than a default unit size determined before the negotiation and 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.).
King/Kiuchi/Wei 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)
As shown above, King/Kiuchi/Wei also discloses delivery quantity corresponding to plural installments agreed before the negotiation and a set of the delivery quantity corresponding to plural installments included in the proposal.
King/Kiuchi/Wei does not explicitly disclose the use of a largest common divisor of a union of a set of these delivery quantities, 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/Wei 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 regard to Claim 7, King discloses:
wherein the negotiator is a supplier supplying the commodities ([0082]; etc., the supplier is a negotiator)
In regard to Claim 8, King/Kiuchi/Wei/Wikipedia 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 specifying the delivery quantity that is set regardless of [the 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
Benjamin et al. (US 8,108,284 B2). A method for implementing an offer/counteroffer negotiation. Characteristics of an offer for an item are received, wherein the characteristics comprise at least one term defining the offer. The offer is published to a plurality of bidders. Among the potential responses to the offer, at least one counteroffer is received from a bidder. The counteroffer comprises at least one alternative term. Provided the counteroffer is acceptable, the counteroffer is accepted. Provided the counteroffer is not acceptable, a second counteroffer is transmitted to the bidder, wherein the second counteroffer comprising at least one alternative term with respect to the counteroffer. The present invention allows a negotiator to negotiate terms with one or more bidders individually, outside the constraints of a traditional auction. (Abstract, see also, at least; BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION, par. 1; SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, par. 2-5; col. 6, par. 6).
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]).
Sun (CN 118378996 A). The invention on the basis of revealing the essence of the supply chain goods replenishing principle, discloses a method for generating goods replenishing order and scheduling goods replenishing plan based on decoupling point of supply and demand contract, which can according to the future real demand and the fulfillment condition of past actual order, realizing correct order issuing time (Right Time) and correct order number (Right Quantity); ensuring that the supply chain is not interrupted; and controlling the decoupling point inventory to change within the most reasonable range; at the same time, the invention provides three threshold control lines for monitoring the supply chain such as order forecast, order early warning and interruption warning; giving the identification and measurement of the supply capacity gap; evaluating the hand stock and the unfinished order based on the supply and demand contract and the future demand; The unconfirmed future demand is assessed on the basis of the supply capacity. The method of the invention is innovated on the basis of DDMRP, the decoupling point inventory is proved to be unrelated to the pre-set time by the compliance and protection of the supply and demand contract, so the inventory is greatly reduced. (Abstract). Also uses SPQ, MOQ, etc. to determined quantity sizes for plural unit shipments (see at least; page 6, “(5)”; page 11, lines 1-11; page 21, lines 12-17).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Applicant asserts that the claims provide a practica application and specific technical improvement, but fails to identify the alleged practical application and/or specific technical improvement and explain how they are achieved in a meaningful manner. The only benefit cited by Applicant is more flexibly adjusted deadlines for reaching an agreement, however, there is no explanation of how/why this represents an improvement or practical application and/or how it is achieved in a meaningful manner. There is no background or evidence in the disclosure to demonstrate that this method of relaxing or flexibly adjusting deadlines is an improvement to the computer, an improvement to prior systems in the art, etc. Nor is there any evidence to demonstrate that these steps cannot be performed without a computer. The claims do represent a “mere computer implementation of a business practice”, that is applied using generic, general-purpose computers.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §112:
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
III. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant provides summaries of the claims and the King and Kiuchi references (without responding to Wei or Wikipedia), but fails to provide any analysis, comparisons, explanation, etc. to demonstrate how/why they are conceptually different.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In regard to the largest common denominator material Applicant has failed to address the applied rejection. Wikipedia was used to demonstrate that this mathematical technique is well-known. As the rejection explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply these mathematical concepts to the data sets in the prior art (data sets having similar relationships to the unionized data sets in the claims). The claims merely state that the results of the union ae used to adjust the deadline and not how any unionization results are used to adjust the deadline (the claims merely apply the union and then adjust the deadline). The rejection also provides at least one example of a situation in which any comparison would result in no change in the deadline.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
September 28, 2026
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights