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 CORRESPONDENCE
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The instant and parent applications (62/689,438; 16/451651; 18/317820) do not provide support for a (Claims 1, 16, 20) an intent to modify and (Claim 3) that the plurality of quotes omit the second initial quote.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the instant application is its filing date of December 24, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended via preliminary amendments.
Claims 2 – 20 are new view preliminary amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed March 19, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, Foreign Patent Document 1 and Non-Patent Literature Document 1 have not been provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
obtaining information associated with a plurality of sellers associated with the electronic negotiation system;
receiving a request for fulfillment of a product or service, wherein the product or the service includes one or more items to purchase in an auction;
during a bidding round of one or more bidding rounds of the auction, based at least in part on the request and first information associated with a first seller of the plurality of sellers, determining a first initial quote customized for the first seller, wherein the first information associated with the first seller includes a first cost for the first seller to fulfill at least one item of the one or more items;
during the bidding round, based at least in part on the request and second information associated with a second seller of the plurality of sellers, determining a second initial quote customized for the second seller, wherein the second information associated with the second seller includes a second cost for the second seller to fulfill the at least one item;
causing presentation of the first initial quote and an option to accept the first initial quote, modify the first initial quote, or decline the first initial quote;
responsive at least in part to causing presentation of the first initial quote and the option, receiving, before an end of the bidding round, feedback data indicating an intent to modify the first initial quote;
generating a modified quote to submit in the bidding round, wherein the modified quote comprises a modification of the first initial quote based at least in part on the feedback data;
determining, at the end of the bidding round, a ranking of multiple quotes including at least the modified quote, wherein the ranking is based at least in part on buyer preferences and real-time data associated with at least one of (i) the buyer, (ii) one or more of the plurality of sellers, or (iii) at least one other auction; and
providing at least the modified quote and the ranking in near real time with the end of the bidding round
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of request for quotes, reverse auctioning, and bidding for services, which corresponds to “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper and fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), e.g., having a consumer seek out service providers to fulfill a request, comparing the cost to fulfill the request from each service provider, and selecting a service provider/winning bidder.
The limitations of:
obtaining information associated with a plurality of sellers associated with the electronic negotiation system;
receiving a request for fulfillment of a product or service, wherein the product or the service includes one or more items to purchase in an auction;
during a bidding round of one or more bidding rounds of the auction, based at least in part on the request and first information associated with a first seller of the plurality of sellers, determining a first initial quote customized for the first seller, wherein the first information associated with the first seller includes a first cost for the first seller to fulfill at least one item of the one or more items;
during the bidding round, based at least in part on the request and second information associated with a second seller of the plurality of sellers, determining a second initial quote customized for the second seller, wherein the second information associated with the second seller includes a second cost for the second seller to fulfill the at least one item;
causing presentation of the first initial quote and an option to accept the first initial quote, modify the first initial quote, or decline the first initial quote;
responsive at least in part to causing presentation of the first initial quote and the option, receiving, before an end of the bidding round, feedback data indicating an intent to modify the first initial quote;
generating a modified quote to submit in the bidding round, wherein the modified quote comprises a modification of the first initial quote based at least in part on the feedback data;
determining, at the end of the bidding round, a ranking of multiple quotes including at least the modified quote, wherein the ranking is based at least in part on buyer preferences and real-time data associated with at least one of (i) the buyer, (ii) one or more of the plurality of sellers, or (iii) at least one other auction; and
providing at least the modified quote and the ranking in near real time with the end of the bidding round,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server. That is, other than reciting a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server in the context of this claim encompasses a consumer placing/providing a request for services and communicate with multiple service providers in order to compare prices and determine who to select. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server to communicate and present (display) information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. a buyer placing/providing a request, sellers submitting their bids, and the buyer selecting a winning bid in an auctioning environment. The generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating and presenting (displaying) information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server.
With regards to the graphical user interface (GUI), the claimed invention’s recitation of the GUI has been recited at a high level of generality and applied to the abstract idea and not directed towards the improvement of GUI technology, resolving an issue that arose in GUI technology, or deeply rooted in technology. The claimed invention is directed towards utilizing generic GUI technology to heavily rely on users reviewing and inputting information, communicating information to users to review and respond to, and displaying information. Unlike CoreWireless, which was directed towards fundamentally changing how a GUI functions, the claimed invention is simply using generic GUI technology to allow users to see information provided by other users and providing a response in a generic manner.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic computing devices, and generic server to perform the steps of:
obtaining information associated with a plurality of sellers associated with the electronic negotiation system;
receiving a request for fulfillment of a product or service, wherein the product or the service includes one or more items to purchase in an auction;
during a bidding round of one or more bidding rounds of the auction, based at least in part on the request and first information associated with a first seller of the plurality of sellers, determining a first initial quote customized for the first seller, wherein the first information associated with the first seller includes a first cost for the first seller to fulfill at least one item of the one or more items;
during the bidding round, based at least in part on the request and second information associated with a second seller of the plurality of sellers, determining a second initial quote customized for the second seller, wherein the second information associated with the second seller includes a second cost for the second seller to fulfill the at least one item;
causing presentation of the first initial quote and an option to accept the first initial quote, modify the first initial quote, or decline the first initial quote;
responsive at least in part to causing presentation of the first initial quote and the option, receiving, before an end of the bidding round, feedback data indicating an intent to modify the first initial quote;
generating a modified quote to submit in the bidding round, wherein the modified quote comprises a modification of the first initial quote based at least in part on the feedback data;
determining, at the end of the bidding round, a ranking of multiple quotes including at least the modified quote, wherein the ranking is based at least in part on buyer preferences and real-time data associated with at least one of (i) the buyer, (ii) one or more of the plurality of sellers, or (iii) at least one other auction; and
providing at least the modified quote and the ranking in near real time with the end of the bidding round,
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claims 2, 3 are directed towards repeating subject matter found in claim 1, but for another user.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 are directed towards collecting and organizing information.
Claim 5, 6 is directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing what buyer preferences are intended to include.
Claim 10 is directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality to perform the extra-solution activity of displaying information, as well as collecting and organizing information.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 are directed towards describing a fundamental economic practice, i.e. what a quote is associated/based on in an auctioning environment, rules of an auction (number of quotes that may be submitted; price-matching), how an auction functions (notifying a winner), price-matching, and rule for what price-matching is based on (number of rounds having to be satisfied).
Claim 17 is directed towards describing a fundamental economic practice, i.e. that an auction includes a plurality of bidding rounds.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for selecting a service provider to fulfill a request in a reverse auctioning environment. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatter et al. (US PGPub 2007/0208630 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US PGPub 2012/0296758 A1) in view of Miller (US PGPub 2009/0112751 A1) in further view of Unisoft datatech (Advantages and Disadvantages of Manual Data Entry Services in India).
In regards to claims 1, 16, 20, Chatter discloses (Claim 1) a system comprising; (Claim 16) a method comprising; (Claim 20) one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:
In regards to:
one or more processors; and
computer-readable media storing first computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
(Figure 1)
obtaining, by one or more server computing devices of an electronic negotiation system, information associated with a plurality of sellers associated with the electronic negotiation system (¶ 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 178, 184, 216, 217 wherein information associated with a plurality of sellers associated with the auctioning and negotiation system is obtained by the system);
receiving, by the one or more server computing devices and from a buyer computing device associated with a buyer, a request for fulfillment of a product or service, wherein the product or the service includes one or more items to purchase in an auction (¶ 116, 117, 119, 120, 123 wherein a buyer submits to the auctioning system a request for have a product/service fulfilled by a seller and wherein the process (as will be discussed in more detail below) involves a plurality of sellers submitting bids to the buyer, the buyer selecting a winning bidder, and purchasing the product/service from the winning bidder);
In regards to:
during a bidding round […] of the auction, based at least in part on the request and first information associated with a first seller of the plurality of sellers, determining, by the one or more server computing devices, a first initial quote customized for the first seller, wherein the first information associated with the first seller includes a first cost for the first seller to fulfill at least one item of the one or more items;
during the bidding round, based at least in part on the request and second information associated with a second seller of the plurality of sellers, determining, by the one or more server computing devices, a second initial quote customized for the second seller, wherein the second information associated with the second seller includes a second cost for the second seller to fulfill the at least one item
(¶ 123, 178 wherein the bids indicate a quote that a seller will fulfill a request, the system also uses historical information, market information, and trends as a means of determining an initial quote. The Examiner asserts that determining a second quote is nothing more than repeating the process of determining a first quote, but for another seller who is providing their bid.
¶ 116, 117, 119, 120, 123 discloses that multiple rounds exists and that bids are received from multiple sellers, thereby disclosing that more than one bid is being received and, therefore, more than one quote from multiple respective sellers are determined since each seller is submitting their bid to be selected and trying to beat the previous bids, wherein the previous bids are different from their current bids.;
¶ 113, 116, 119, 123, 178, 216, 217 wherein information associated with each respective seller includes a previous bid, historical bid, market information, trends, performance, and etc., which are used as a basis for determining what a respective seller’s initial and subsequent bids bid should be
Finally, for the purposes of compact prosecution, although it would have been obvious, if not inherent, that Chatter discloses a plurality of bidding rounds, the Examiner has provided a more conservative rejection in view of Smith to more explicitly teach this aspect of the claimed invention.);
In regards to:
[…], the first initial quote and an option to one of accept the first initial quote, modify the first initial quote, or decline the first initial quote;
responsive at least in part to causing presentation of the first initial quote and the option, receiving, by the one or more server computing devices […] and by the one or more server computing devices and […], feedback data indicating an intent to modify the first initial quote;
generating, by the one or more server computing devices, a modified quote to submit in the bidding round, wherein the modified quote comprises a modification of the first initial quote based at least in part on the feedback data
(¶ 94, 167 further discloses that there are a number of rounds that are occurring prior to the final quote and wherein seller bids are iteratively being received during a round and before the end of a bidding round;
¶ 119, 121, 123, 178, 197 wherein the seller will choose to accept, modify, or deny the quote (i.e. feedback). That is to say, new quotes are being generated based on what was been previously submitted by other sellers including the seller. See for example, ¶ 119 “Each seller engine, as earlier described, automatically responds with instantaneous iterative bids… . The seller, moreover, also has the option to decline participating in bids other than within its own class of sellers in order to preserve and protect its own business model.”; ¶ 121 “…while enabling the same seller to iteratively and automatically compete in real-time for the buyer’s business (‘price’ and ‘value’ are herein used interchangeably.”; ¶ 123 “The goal is to deliver the best pricing to the buyer by engaging a very large pool of SAEJs armed with real-time market data to compete amongst themselves, such that the lower price from the last round is used as a basis for the successive round, with the intent to improve or better it further. This process is repeated until only the winning bid is left and other participating SAEJs have bowed out.”; ¶ 178 “Subsequently, the SAEJs are asked to re-bid against this best bid (lowest possible price or highest interest rate as before discussed), offered in the last iteration. … If, however, an improved bid is submitted, the process is repeated again in real-time, with consecutively successive better bids from participating SAEJs until only a single SAEJ is left for each of the goods…”
In other words, sellers, in response to how the reverse auction is proceeding, are provided the opportunity to leave an auction or modify their respective bids until a winning seller is identified, wherein each respective bid, corresponding to a respective seller, is entered via their respective computing device (see, at least, claim 57 wherein the reverse auctioning system is comprised of buyer and seller computer that allow for each respective user type to communicate over the network and input and respond to information, i.e. submit a request and allow for bidding).
Finally, for the purposes of compact prosecution, although it would have been obvious, if not inherent, that Chatter discloses a plurality of bidding rounds, the Examiner has provided a more conservative rejection in view of Smith to more explicitly teach this aspect of the claimed invention.);
determining, by the one or more server computing devices, […], a ranking of multiple quotes including at least the modified quote, wherein the ranking is based at least in part on buyer preferences and real-time data associated with at least one of (i) the buyer, (ii) one or more of the plurality of sellers, or (iii) at least one other auction (¶ 94, 167 further discloses that there are a number of rounds that are occurring prior to the final quote and wherein seller bids are iteratively being received during a round and before the end of a bidding round;
¶ 141, 142, 161, 195, 197, 216, 217 wherein the system determines a ranking of sellers based on the bids that have been submitted at the end of the bidding process and wherein sellers can be ranked as preferred or not preferred; wherein the sellers’ profile information includes their financial, reputation in the market place, service, support, ability to meet delivery commitments, longevity in business; “There is also the flexibility for the buyer to specify the number of lowest price SAEJ’s results that are to be considered, such as only the five lowest price sellers.”; sellers can be ranked based on whether they are scrupulous or unscrupulous; sellers can be ranked as prior winners or not; sellers all start out the same and are weeded out based on the bids provided on the bidding rounds and they are progressing); and
providing, by the one or more server computing devices and to the buyer computing device, at least the modified quote and the ranking in near real time with the end of the bidding round (¶ 111, 117, 119, 120, 123, 141, 142, 161, 195, 197, 216, 217 wherein the system provides the buyer with the quotes, including the winning quote, and information about sellers in order to assist the buyer with making an informed decision and wherein the auctioning process is performed in near real time.).
Chatter discloses an auctioning system and method and although Chatter discloses that a number of rounds must occur prior to a final quote, i.e. that the number of rounds is greater than one, Chatter, does not explicitly disclose wherein the number of bidding rounds can be greater than one.
To be more specific, Chatter fails to explicitly disclose:
during a bidding round of one or more bidding rounds of the auction, based at least in part on the request and first information associated with a first seller of the plurality of sellers, determining, by the one or more server computing devices, a first initial quote customized for the first seller, wherein the first information associated with the first seller includes a first cost for the first seller to fulfill at least one item of the one or more items;
determining, by the one or more server computing devices, at the end of the bidding round, a ranking of multiple quotes including at least the modified quote, wherein the ranking is based at least in part on buyer preferences and real-time data associated with at least one of (i) the buyer, (ii) one or more of the plurality of sellers, or (iii) at least one other auction
However, Smith, which is also directed towards auctions, further teaches that it is old and well-known in the art for an auctioning request to include the number of rounds that must be satisfied before a final quote is determined, as well as the duration of a round. Smith teaches that there are a variety of reasons of why there should be a request for a number and duration of rounds and teaches that one reason for having a number and duration of rounds is based on the number of participants in the auction. Similar to Chatter, Smith wants to ensure that bidders have an opportunity to submit a bid
(For support see: ¶ 38, 49)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the auctioning system and method of Chatter with the ability to submit a request that includes the number and duration of rounds a user would like to be conducted, as taught by Smith, as there may be reasons of why a stipulation should be made, for example, the number of participants in the auction requires for there to be a number and duration of rounds to be conducted.
The combination of Chatter and Smith discloses a system and method for managing and executing an auction. Although one of ordinary skill in the art of auctions would have found it obvious (if not inherent) that a user can change their bid before a round is completed/ends by simply not submitting the bid, the combination of Chatter and Smith fails to explicitly disclose whether it is well-known in the art to allow a bidder to change their bid before a round is completed/ends.
To be more specific, the combination of Chatter and Smith fails to explicitly disclose:
responsive at least in part to causing presentation of the first initial quote and the option, receiving, by the one or more server computing devices and before an end of the bidding round and by the one or more server computing devices and from the seller computing device via input to the GUI, feedback data indicating an intent to modify the first initial quote.
However, Miller, which is also directed towards auctions comprised of a number of rounds and round duration, teaches that it is old and well-known in the art to allow for multiple bids to be submitted before a round is completed/ends. Miller teaches that such a feature would be beneficial to active bidders because an active bidder may decide to change a bid within the current open round.
(¶ 67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to allow a bidder to modify a bid submitted in a round, as taught by Miller, in the auctioning system and method of the combination of Chatter and Smith as it is known for active bidder to decide to change a bid they previously submitted in a round and this would allow for an active bidder to submit a new bid before a round ends.
The combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller discloses a system and method for conducting an auction. Although the combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller discloses that it is old and well-known in the art to conduct auctions manually and allowing users to submit bids, as well as disclosing their (Chatter) preferred invention is performed without human intervention, the combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller fails to explicitly disclose why one of ordinary skill in the art would prefer to perform the invention manually.
To be more specific, combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller fails to explicitly disclose:
causing presentation of, by the one or more server computing devices and via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a display of a seller computing device associated with the first seller, the first initial quote and a an option to one of accept the first initial quote, modify the first initial quote, or decline the first initial quote;
responsive at least in part to causing presentation of the first initial quote and the option, receiving, by the one or more server computing devices and before an end of the bidding round and by the one or more server computing devices and from the seller computing device via input to the GUI, feedback data indicating an intent to modify the first initial quote;
First, the Examiner refers to ¶ 21 of the applicant’s specification where the applicant explicitly recites that the invention can be performed by the computer or can be performed manually by the user, while still achieving the same predictable result. In other words, ¶ 21 of the applicant’s specification recites preferred methods of how data entry can be performed and that either preferred method can be performed while still achieving the same predictable result as neither method affects the end result of the invention.
With that said, Unisoft discloses that manual entry of information is old and well-known in the art and discloses that there are various advantages and disadvantages of using a manual data entry while still achieving the same predictable result, i.e. a computer receiving input. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon ¶ 21 of the applicant’s specification, the combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller, and Unisoft would have found that manual versus non-manual data entry is a matter of preference and would have found that either preference are old and well-known techniques of data entry, wherein regardless of the technique used, the same predictable result is achieved and unaffected. This is further supported by ¶ 21 of the applicant’s specification, wherein the applicant explicitly recites that either method can be used and end result is still achieved and unaffected. The Examiner asserts that the difference between the claimed preferred embodiment and the combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller is that the combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller recites the preferred data entry technique discussed in the applicant’s specification, but not claimed. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked towards the teachings of Unisoft to determine 1) whether it is old and well-known in the art to enter data manually, which it does; and 2) whether one would have been motivated to enter data manually based on whether there are any advantages to data entry, which it also does, especially since the combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller discloses that the system still allows for human intervention (Chatter – ¶ 237; Smith – Fig. 3; ¶ 40, 52, 54).
(For support see Unisoft – Pages 1 – 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate manual data entry of a bid, as taught by Unisoft, in the auctioning system and method that involves human buyers and sellers of the combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller as relying on users to enter data as manual data entry is capable of being more accurate than automated data entry because of the level of care in handling a specific task as a human operator can recognized and fix errors spotted and a human can distinguish between right or wrong.
Further still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to pick manual data entry, as taught by Unisoft, and incorporate it into the more automated auctioning system and method that involves human buyers and sellers of the combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (entering data manually by a human or automatically) to the recognized need (entering data) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (the advantages, benefits, and required resources are known).
Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of manually entering data, as taught by Unisoft, for the more automated data entry, as disclosed by the combination of Chatter, Smith, and Miller.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the GUI comprise a first GUI, the display comprises a first display, the input comprises first input, and the operations further comprising:
causing presentation of, by the one or more server computing devices and via a second GUI of a second display of a second seller computing device associated with the second seller, the second initial quote and a second option to accept the second initial quote, modify the second initial quote, or decline the second initial quote
responsive at least in part to causing presentation of the second initial quote and the second option, receiving, by the one or more server computing devices and before the end of the bidding round and from the second seller computing device via input to the second GUI, second feedback data indicating an intent to accept the second initial quote;
wherein the plurality of quotes includes the second initial quote
(Chatter – ¶ 94, 167 further discloses that there are a number of rounds that are occurring prior to the final quote and wherein seller bids are iteratively being received during a round and before the end of a bidding round;
Chatter – ¶ 119, 121, 123, 178, 197 wherein the seller will choose to accept, modify, or deny the quote (i.e. feedback). That is to say, new quotes are being generated based on what was been previously submitted by other sellers including the seller. See for example, ¶ 119 “Each seller engine, as earlier described, automatically responds with instantaneous iterative bids… . The seller, moreover, also has the option to decline participating in bids other than within its own class of sellers in order to preserve and protect its own business model.”; ¶ 121 “…while enabling the same seller to iteratively and automatically compete in real-time for the buyer’s business (‘price’ and ‘value’ are herein used interchangeably.”; ¶ 123 “The goal is to deliver the best pricing to the buyer by engaging a very large pool of SAEJs armed with real-time market data to compete amongst themselves, such that the lower price from the last round is used as a basis for the successive round, with the intent to improve or better it further. This process is repeated until only the winning bid is left and other participating SAEJs have bowed out.”; ¶ 178 “Subsequently, the SAEJs are asked to re-bid against this best bid (lowest possible price or highest interest rate as before discussed), offered in the last iteration. … If, however, an improved bid is submitted, the process is repeated again in real-time, with consecutively successive better bids from participating SAEJs until only a single SAEJ is left for each of the goods…”
In other words, sellers, in response to how the reverse auction is proceeding, are provided the opportunity to leave an auction or modify their respective bids until a winning seller is identified, wherein each respective bid, corresponding to a respective seller, is entered via their respective computing device (see, at least, claim 57 wherein the reverse auctioning system is comprised of buyer and seller computer that allow for each respective user type to communicate over the network and input and respond to information, i.e. submit a request and allow for bidding).;
Miller – ¶ 67 regarding “before an end of the bidding round”;
Finally, the Examiner asserts that the claim is repeating what was recited in claim 1, but for another seller, wherein the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft already discloses that auctioning/negotiation systems can include a plurality of bidders).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the GUI comprise a first GUI, wherein the display comprises a first display, the input comprises first input, and the operations further comprising:
causing presentation of, by the one or more server computing devices and via a second GUI of a display of a second seller computing device associated with the second seller, the second initial quote and a second option to accept the second initial quote, modify the second initial quote, or decline the second initial quote; and
responsive at least in part to causing presentation of the second initial quote and the second option, receiving, by the one or more server computing devices and before the end of the bidding round and from the second seller computing device via input to the second GUI, second feedback data indicating an intent to decline the second initial quote,
wherein the plurality of quotes omits the second initial quote
(Chatter – ¶ 94, 167 further discloses that there are a number of rounds that are occurring prior to the final quote and wherein seller bids are iteratively being received during a round and before the end of a bidding round;
Chatter – ¶ 119, 121, 123, 178, 197 wherein the seller will choose to accept, modify, or deny the quote (i.e. feedback). That is to say, new quotes are being generated based on what was been previously submitted by other sellers including the seller. See for example, ¶ 119 “Each seller engine, as earlier described, automatically responds with instantaneous iterative bids… . The seller, moreover, also has the option to decline participating in bids other than within its own class of sellers in order to preserve and protect its own business model.”; ¶ 121 “…while enabling the same seller to iteratively and automatically compete in real-time for the buyer’s business (‘price’ and ‘value’ are herein used interchangeably.”; ¶ 123 “The goal is to deliver the best pricing to the buyer by engaging a very large pool of SAEJs armed with real-time market data to compete amongst themselves, such that the lower price from the last round is used as a basis for the successive round, with the intent to improve or better it further. This process is repeated until only the winning bid is left and other participating SAEJs have bowed out.”; ¶ 178 “Subsequently, the SAEJs are asked to re-bid against this best bid (lowest possible price or highest interest rate as before discussed), offered in the last iteration. … If, however, an improved bid is submitted, the process is repeated again in real-time, with consecutively successive better bids from participating SAEJs until only a single SAEJ is left for each of the goods…”
In other words, sellers, in response to how the reverse auction is proceeding, are provided the opportunity to leave an auction or modify their respective bids until a winning seller is identified, wherein each respective bid, corresponding to a respective seller, is entered via their respective computing device (see, at least, claim 57 wherein the reverse auctioning system is comprised of buyer and seller computer that allow for each respective user type to communicate over the network and input and respond to information, i.e. submit a request and allow for bidding).;
Miller – ¶ 67 regarding “before an end of the bidding round”;
Morever, the Examiner asserts that the claim is repeating what was recited in claim 1, but for another seller, wherein the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft already discloses that auctioning/negotiation systems can include a plurality of bidders.
Finally, with regards to “wherein the plurality of quotes omits the second initial quote”, the Examiner asserts that the initial quote is omitted as new bids are being received and that the selection of the winner bidder is based on the most recent bids received by the respective bidders, thereby omitting the initial bid.).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the ranking is further based at least in part on historical transaction data (Chatter – ¶ 141, 161, 195, 197, 206, 207, 216, 217; Claim 126 wherein the ranks of the sellers are modified as the bidding rounds are carried out and, as well as historical transaction information).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the buyer preferences include years of operation of a seller (Chatter – ¶ 141 wherein a buyer preference can include how long a seller has been in the business).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the buyer preferences include an environmental impact of the seller (The Examiner refers to and incorporates MPEP ¶ 2111.04 and $ 2111.05 as the contents of the buyer preferences, i.e. “an environmental impact of the seller”, is a label for the preferences 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 type of preferences), 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. The Examiner asserts that what the preferences could be are directed towards descriptive subject matter describing what the preferences are intended to be.).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein determining the ranking is further based at least in part on one or more of a number of bids awarded to a seller during previous transactions, a financial obligation associated with the request, or a reputation of the buyer (Chatter – ¶ 141, 161, 195, 197, 206, 207, 216, 217; Claim 126 wherein the ranks of the sellers are modified as the bidding rounds are carried out and, as well as historical transaction information).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein determining the ranking is further based at least in part on a first experience level of the first seller in fulfilling orders for the at least one item and a second experience level of the second seller in fulfilling orders for the at least one item (Chatter – ¶ 141, 161, 195, 197, 206, 207, 216, 217; Claim 126 wherein the ranks of the sellers are modified as the bidding rounds are carried out and, as well as historical transaction information, which includes their experience level).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the determining the ranking is further based at least in part on buyer characteristics including one or more of a reputation of the buyer or an experience level of the buyer (Chatter – ¶ 120, 129 wherein the purchasing history of the buyer is considered by the system to assist the buyer with the request and price establishment, which, in turn, results in attracting sellers).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: causing presentation of, by the one or more server computing devices on the seller computing device and via the GUI, the ranking (Chatter – ¶ 116 wherein the winning seller is notified, i.e. the system presents to the seller that they are in the top rank, i.e. winner).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein determining the ranking is further based at least in part on one or more of an earlier ranking of the first seller (i) in an earlier bidding round or (ii) in association with at least one other request (Chatter – ¶ 141, 142, 161, 195, 197, 216, 217 wherein the system determines a ranking of sellers based on the bids that have been submitted at the end of the bidding process and wherein sellers can be ranked as preferred or not preferred; wherein the sellers’ profile information includes their financial, reputation in the market place, service, support, ability to meet delivery commitments, longevity in business; “There is also the flexibility for the buyer to specify the number of lowest price SAEJ’s results that are to be considered, such as only the five lowest price sellers.”; sellers can be ranked based on whether they are scrupulous or unscrupulous; sellers can be ranked as prior winners or not; sellers all start out the same and are weeded out based on the bids provided on the bidding rounds and they are progressing).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first initial quote is associated with all items of the one or more items and the first cost is a cost for the first seller to fulfill all items of the one or more items (Chatter – ¶ 123, 178 wherein the bids indicate a quote that a seller will fulfill a request, the system also uses historical information, market information, and trends as a means of determining an initial quote.
Chatter – ¶ 113, 116, 119, 123, 178, 216, 217 wherein information associated with each respective seller includes a previous bid, historical bid, market information, trends, performance, and etc., which are used as a basis for determining what a respective seller’s initial and subsequent bids bid should be).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first initial quote is further based at least in part on data associated with at least one of another buyer or another request (Chatter – ¶ 123, 178 wherein the bids indicate a quote that a seller will fulfill a request, the system also uses historical information, market information, and trends as a means of determining an initial quote.
Chatter – ¶ 113, 116, 119, 123, 178, 216, 217 wherein information associated with each respective seller includes a previous bid, historical bid, market information, trends, performance, and etc., which are used as a basis for determining what a respective seller’s initial and subsequent bids bid should be).
In regards to claims 14, 17, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1 (the method of claim 16), wherein the request includes a maximum number of quotes that may be submitted in each bidding round of the one or more bidding rounds by each seller (Miller – ¶ 22, 30, 56, 67 wherein the maximum number of bids corresponds to the maximum quantity being auctioned and wherein the maximum bid is further dependent on bids provided in previous round by each respective bidder. In other words, although Miller allows for multiple bids to be submitted, the system is configured to stop receiving bids that exceed the allowed quantity, i.e. MaxBids = f(MaxQuantity) or MaxBids≤ MaxQuantity).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the system of claim 1, the operations further comprising:
responsive at least in part to providing the modified quote and the ranking, receiving, by the one or more server computing devices and from the buyer computing device, a selection of the first seller, the selection indicating that the first seller has been chosen to fulfill the request; and
sending an indication of the selection to the first seller
(Chatter – ¶ 123, 141, 206, 207, 216, 217 wherein a buyer is notified of a winning bid for their selection in order to inform the seller that they have been selected to fulfill the request, wherein the seller’s historical information is updated to reflect their performance, which further updates their ranking).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the feedback data comprises first feedback data, the method further comprising:
determining a price-matching quote including an indication of a lowest quote associated with the plurality of sellers;
providing the price-matching quote to the first seller;
receiving second feedback data from the first seller indicating at least one of an acceptance of the price-matching quote; and
in response to receiving the second feedback data indicating an acceptance of the price-matching quote, providing the price-matching quote and the ranking to the buyer
(Chatter – ¶ 197, 216, 217 wherein the system notifies sellers of prior bids in order to provide them with the opportunity to price match a bid and where the system will further notify buyers of winning bids and corresponding winning seller; Smith – ¶ 49 regarding number of rounds and which participants are considered capable of fulfilling the request, as was discussed above).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Chatter, Smith, Miller, and Unisoft discloses the method of claim 18, wherein determining the price-matching quote is based at least in part on determining that a number of bidding rounds included in the request has been satisfied (Chatter – ¶ 197, 216, 217 wherein the system notifies sellers of prior bids in order to provide them with the opportunity to price match a bid and where the system will further notify buyers of winning bids and corresponding winning seller; ¶ 123 wherein buyers submit requests for sellers to provide bids to fulfill the request, wherein a winner is selected after multiple rounds of bidding; Smith – ¶ 49 regarding number of rounds, as was discussed above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Stephens (US PGPub 2011/0276452 A1); Hansen (CA 2479596 A1); Kansal (US PGPub 2005/0055900 A1); Kansal (WO 0217182 A1); Roberts et al. (CA 2344253 A1); Cook (US PGPub 2022/0309427 A1); Davar et al. (US PGPub 2018/0158004 A1); Al-Abdulqader et al. (WO 2007/011672 A2); Al-Abdulqader et al. (US PGPub 2007/0016514 A1); Heimermann et al. (US PGPub 2002/0143692 A1); Vega (US PGPub 2002/0120554 A1); Thackston (CA 2368114 A1); Chandrashekar et al. (Auction-Based Mechanisms for Electronic Procurement); Ha et al. (Matching buyers and suppliers an intelligent dynamic exchange model); Gang et al. (Auction Based E-Procurement Mechanism Design) – which disclose systems and methods for allowing bidders, e.g., service providers, to bid for jobs (or the like)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 7/30/2026
Prosecution Insights