DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 11/17/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
By this amendment, claims 1, 10, and 19 are amended. Therefore, claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, and 21-23 are pending. Any objections and rejections not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance:
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended to overcome the rejections. In particular, the Office Action asserts that in claim 1 "the claimed limitations encompass a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind." See Office Action, p. 4. The Office Action makes the same assertion regarding claims 10 and 19. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Applicant respectfully submits that the claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to a specific and practical improvement in the field of cloud resource billing, and are therefore patent-eligible under § 101. As detailed in paragraphs 9-12 of the specification, the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem: how to accurately and efficiently share and deduct usage across multiple accounts and subpackages without incurring avoidable charges due to suboptimal deduction order. The method is not directed to an abstract idea alone, but rather recites a structured and technical process involving (1) receiving detailed sharing policies for two usage packages from an order system, (2) generating a sharing execution plan with deduction sequences based on those policies and time constraints, (3) receiving use records from a resource management system, (4) sorting those records into a to-be-deducted queue based on the plan queue, wherein each queue entry in the to-be-deducted queue associates a use record to a corresponding usage subpackage based on a least-cost deduction sequence, and (5) performing deductions according to the least-cost strategy to reduce usage excess. This coordination across multiple policies and usage subpackages could not be practically performed by a human or with pen and paper, and it improves the functioning of a computing device itself by enabling least-cost deduction and avoiding usage package overages. For the reasons established above, the Applicant respectfully submits that subject matter in independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are patentable as being directed to statutory subject matter. Claims 3-9, 12-18, and 21-23 depend directly or indirectly from independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and incorporate all of the corresponding limitations thereof. Thus, claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, and 21-23 are patentable as being directed to statutory subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
With regard to point (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of a mental process for the reasons in this Office Action’s 101 rejection below. Furthermore, the recited limitations are merely abstract ideas (manual activities) that are automated (see MPEP § 2144.04(III)) and do not improve the functioning of a computing device nor solve a technical problem relating to the computing device. The invention is directed to optimizing a user’s total cost to utilize multiple accounts each with a usage package. A reduction of usage excess does not improve the efficiency nor functioning of a computing device as there was no existing problem regarding the usage of the computing device. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 12, and 19-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 3 and 12, “the use records” should read “the plurality of use records”.
In Claim 19, “to generate a to-be-deducted queue queue” should read “to generate a to-be-deducted queue”.
Any claim not specifically mentioned above, is objected due to its dependency on an objected claim.
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, 3-10, 12-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 3-9 are directed to methods and falls within the statutory category of processes; Claims 10 and 12-18 are directed to computing devices and falls within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 19 and 21-23 are directed to computer program products and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, "Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?" Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “generating, by a charging system and according to the first sharing policy and the second sharing policy, a sharing execution plan”, “sorting, according to the sharing execution plan, the first use record and the second use record to generate a to-be-deducted queue”, and “deducting, according to the to-be-deducted queue and the least-cost deduction sequence, the first usage package and the second usage package to reduce usage excess”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally generate a sharing execution plan based on a first and second sharing policy, a person can mentally sort a first and second use record based on a sharing execution plan, and a person can mentally determine/decide whether to deduct a first or second usage package based on observing a to-be-deducted queue and a least-cost deduction sequence.
Claim 10: It is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it follows the same reasoning for Step 2A Prong 1.
Claim 19: It is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it follows the same reasoning for Step 2A Prong 1.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will
evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10, and 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “A method implemented by a computing device, comprising”, “A computing device, comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the processor to”, and “A computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor, cause a computing device to” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the following additional elements – “receiving, from an order system via a portal, a first sharing policy of a first usage package of a first account and a second sharing policy of a second usage package of a second account” and “receiving, from a resource management system, a first use record of a third usage package of the first account and a second use record of a fourth usage package of the second account” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the following additional elements – “wherein the first usage package comprises first usage subpackages (B11, B12, ... , and B1n) of n cloud
service resource types, wherein the second usage package comprises second usage subpackages (B21, B22, ... , and B2n) of the n cloud service resource types, wherein B11 and B21 are of a first cloud service resource type, wherein B12 and B22 are of a second cloud service resource type, wherein B1n and B2n are of an nth cloud service resource type, and wherein n is a natural number”, “wherein the sharing execution plan comprises n deduction sequences, wherein a first deduction sequence in the n deduction sequences is between B11 and B21, wherein a second deduction sequence in the n deduction sequences is between B12 and B22, and wherein an nth deduction sequence in the n deduction sequences is between B1n and B2n”, and “wherein each queue entry in the to-be-deducted queue associates a use record to a corresponding usage subpackage based on a least-cost deduction sequence” which are merely recitations of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful
limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. After
having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been
concluded that the claims not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10, and 19: The claims do not include additional elements, alone 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing
components and functions which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities are also Well-Understood,
Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the
following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions
when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or
as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network").
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “further sorting, based on use time, the first use record and the second use record to obtain a plurality of use records”, “obtaining, based on a cloud service resource type of each of the use records, a corresponding deduction sequence corresponding to each of the use records”, and “and determining, according to the corresponding deduction sequence, a corresponding to-be-deducted usage package corresponding to each of the use records to obtain the to-be-deducted queue, wherein each queue entry in the to-be-deducted queue comprises a corresponding use record and the corresponding to-be-deducted usage package”, as drafted, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally sort a first and second use record based on use time, a person can mentally map a deduction sequence to each use record based on a cloud service resource type, and a person can mentally determine a usage package to deduct based on the to-be-deducted queue. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 4, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the first sharing policy comprises first deducting the first usage package, and wherein the second sharing policy comprises first deducting the second usage package” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the first sharing policy comprises first deducting at least one usage subpackage in the first usage package, and wherein the second sharing policy comprises first deducting the second usage package” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the first sharing policy comprises first deducting at least one first usage subpackage in the first usage package, and wherein the second sharing policy comprises first deducting at least one second usage subpackage in the second usage package” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the first sharing policy comprises first deducting the first usage package, and wherein the second sharing policy comprises first deducting at least one usage subpackage in the second usage package” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein each of the first sharing policy and the second sharing policy comprises a time range for deducting the first usage package based on a third use record within the time range” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein each of the first sharing policy and the second sharing policy comprises a time range for deducting the second usage package based on a third use record within the time range” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 12, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 13, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 14, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 15, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 16, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 17, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 18, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 21, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 21 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 22, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 22 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 23, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Therefore, claim 23 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, and 21-23 do not have prior art rejections because prior arts, either alone or in combination, does not render obvious, nor anticipate the combination of claimed elements recited in the independent claims. In particular, the prior arts do not disclose the limitations “wherein the sharing execution plan comprises n deduction sequences, wherein a first deduction sequence in the n deduction sequences is between B11 and B21, wherein a second deduction sequence in the n deduction sequences is between B12 and B22, and wherein an nth deduction sequence in the n deduction sequences is between B1n and B2n” and “wherein each queue entry in the to-be-deducted queue associates a use record to a corresponding usage subpackage based on a least-cost deduction sequence” in claim 1 in conjunction with the rest of the limitations in the claim and similarly in independent claims 10 and 19.
Raleigh et al. (U.S. 2013/0304616) discloses that a service policy is included in a service plan design for a user account bundle (i.e. usage package of an account), including indication of whether the plan is shareable by subscribers; paragraph [0281]. A batch of subscriber data is imported and used to create and store subscriber records repeatedly, with an account of a plurality of accounts being a given account type with a respective plan (i.e. a first and second set of sharing policy, usage package, and account inclusive); paragraphs [0331], [0434].
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly in independent claims 10 and 19), True et al. Pub. No. US 20080096524 A1 (hereafter True) teaches wherein the first usage package comprises first usage subpackages (B11, B12, ... , and B1n) of n cloud service resource types, wherein the second usage package comprises second usage subpackages (B21, B22, ... , and B2n) of the n cloud service resource types, wherein B11 and B21 are of a first cloud service resource type, wherein B12 and B22 are of a second cloud service resource type, wherein B1n and B2n are of an nth cloud service resource type, and wherein n is a natural number ([0022] “The Service Plan provides a pre-defined allotment of resources, referred to as the total resource allotment, to the group 12a-12n once each billing cycle. The total resource allotment can include a number of minutes of call time, for example 1000 minutes, during which calls can be made and/or received over the mobile telecommunications network 10.”, [0023] “The total resource allotment can include several resource categories each applicable to a different service resource, another category being for example sending and/or receiving a predefined number of text messages, such as for example 100 text messages.”, [0024] “The total resource allotment is shared by the group members 12a-12n via resource allowances. A resource allowance is given to each group member once each billing cycle. The resource allowances are defined for each group member at 104 such that the sum of all the resource allowances for the billing cycle equals the total resource allotment for the billing cycle. The resource allowances can be the same for each group member, such as 4 group members each having 250 minutes of call time for each billing cycle. Alternatively, different resource allowances can be given to different group members. Further, some group members may not receive a resource allowance for every category. For example, in a group including a father, mother and two children, the 100 text messages may be split only between the children, if so desired.”, Note: Each group member’s resource allowance is interpreted as a usage package, and each resource category of a group member’s resource allowance (i.e. a number of minutes of call time, sending and/or receiving a predefined number of text messages, etc.) is interpreted as a usage subpackage).
Raleigh Pub. No. US 20100197266 A1 discloses [0136] “…where each user or device still has its own service plan that is a sub-plan under the aggregate plan so that each user or device has independent service policy…” (Note: Each user’s sub-plan is interpreted as a usage package with a respective policy (sharing policy)).
However, claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, and 21-23 are still rejected based on the 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN CHE-CHUN TONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
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, April Y Blair can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/J.C.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196