DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 21 November 2025.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11-12, and 16-17 have been amended.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 recite allowable subject matter and the claims would be allowable if the claims were re-written or amended to overcome the current 101 rejection stated in the Office Action below.
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, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1 & 3-8 are directed to a method, claims 9 & 11-16, are directed to a device (system), and claims 17 & 19-20 are directed to a product of manufacture.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of delivery cost estimation. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
extracting first feature information specific to a target recommended content item from related data of the target recommended content item, the target recommended content item being to be delivered to recommend a target resource;
determining, at least based on the first feature information, and using a cost estimation, an expected initial cost in a contending delivery of the target recommended content item;
determining, based on the expected initial cost, a target initial cost for use in the contending delivery of the target recommended content item; and
delivering, the target recommended content item to a user group in a recommendation occasion based on the target initial cost;
wherein determining, the expected initial cost comprises:
determining at least one item category to which the target recommended content item is divided;
obtaining second feature information specific to the at least one item category, the second feature information specific to a respective item category of the at least one item category being determined based on related data for a plurality of sample recommended content items divided into the respective item category, a number of successful deliveries of a sample recommended content item of the plurality of sample recommended content items exceeding a predetermined threshold; and
determining the expected initial cost of the target recommended content item based on the first feature information specific to the target recommended content item and the second feature information specific to the at least one item category to which the target recommended content item is divided.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of delivery cost estimation, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “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).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite steps involving extracting first feature information specific to a target recommend content item where the target recommended content item is to be delivered to a target resource, determining from the first feature information and using a cost estimation an initial cost in a contending delivery of the target recommended content item, determining based on the initial cost a target initial cost for use in the contending delivery of the target recommended content item, delivering, the target recommended content item to a user group in a recommendation occasion based on the target initial cost, determining at least one item category to which the target recommended content item is divided, obtaining second feature information specific to the at least one item category, the second feature information specific to a respective item category of the at least one item category being determined based on related data for a plurality of sample recommended content items divided into the respective item category, a number of successful deliveries of a sample recommended content item of the plurality of sample recommended content items exceeding a predetermined threshold, and determining the expected initial cost of the target recommended content item based on the first feature information specific to the target recommended content item and the second feature information specific to the at least one item category to which the target recommended content item is divided, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including 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). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional element of an electronic device, a trained cost estimation model, and the electronic device.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., delivery cost estimation) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claims recite training the cost estimation model, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the training of the model is actually functioning beyond known functions. Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea using generically recited computing components, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional element of an electronic device, a trained cost estimation model, and the electronic device, recited in independent claim 1 is recited and described in a generic manner merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination with other claimed features, the additional element of representative claim 1 does not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 9 and 17 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 9 includes the additional elements of an electronic device, at least one processing unit, at least one memory, the at least one memory being coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the device to perform, and independent claim 17 includes the additional element of a computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, which when executed by an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements in claims 9 and 17, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 9 and 17 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 9 and 17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 9 and 17, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 9 and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20, depending from claims 1, 9, and 17 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20 do not include any further additional elements that would be analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. Accordingly, claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20 do not recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
obtaining second feature information specific to the at least one item category, the second feature information specific to a respective item category of the at least one category being determined based on related data for a plurality of sample recommended content items divided into respective item category, a number of successful deliveries of a sample recommended content item of the plurality of sample recommended content items exceeding a predetermined threshold; and
determining the expected initial cost of the target recommended content item based on the first feature information specific to the target recommended content item and the second feature information specific to the at least one item category to which the target recommended content is divided.
The most apposite prior art of record includes Fang, B., et al. (PGP No. US 2023/0245178 A1), Shanker, P., et al. (PGP No. US 2024/0232699 A1), and Kairinos, D. (PGP No. US 2019/0130448 A1), to teach a method of delivery cost estimation.
The reference of Fang describes a method for estimating a cost for delivery of an item including extracting information about each item, such as information about available bids regarding the item ad campaigns (Fang, paragraph [0032]). The method of Fang also explains that an automatic determination for initial ad bid prices, including recommendations for bidding prices for campaigns and recommendations for bidding prices down to an item level (Fang, paragraphs [0024] and [0035]). Further, Fang also describes an optimal ad bidding price for specific buyers to deliver the ad campaign (Fang, paragraphs [0024] and [0034]). Although Fang describes these features, Fang does not disclose the allowable features indicated above.
The reference of Shanker is merely relied upon to show that a model to estimate a cost for delivery can be specifically trained with a plurality of datasets related to the context of the objects, and further explains that a machine learning model is used to determine an accuracy score for the datasets that are used to train the model (Shanker, paragraph [0060]). Although Shanker describes these features, Fang does not teach nor describe the allowable features indicated above.
Next, the reference of Kairinos describes a method for offering and generating recommendations related to the monitoring of offers of users and resulting in recommending special offers related to items or services (Kairinos, see: paragraphs [0005]-[0008]). Although Kairinos describes these features, the allowable subject matter is not described.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
As cited in the Office Action mailed on 25 August 2025, the Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Optimal offer-bid strategy of an energy storage portfolio: A linear quasi-relaxation approach, documented on PTO-892 form as reference U in the Office Action mailed 8/25/25, and hereinafter referred to as ‘Optimal’, describes a model of behavior of an expected profit-maximizing merchant storage owner with the ability to exercise unilateral market power, resulting in a non-linear bilevel optimization problem that is transformed into a single-level stochastic bilinear program using the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. The reference Optimal, although describes such features, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 21 November 2025, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 12 of the remarks stating that “The claimed subject matter is not directed to the alleged judicial exception, but to delivery cost estimation and delivery of the target recommended content item implemented by an electronic device”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims are directed to the abstract idea. The Examiner acknowledges that the claims now recite that the steps are implemented by an electronic device. However, even when considering the amendments to the claims with the now claimed electronic device, the device is considered to be beyond the abstract idea and considered to be an additional element addressed in Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, and the remaining limitations are directed to the abstract idea. The claims are still directed to the abstract idea of delivery cost estimation, and falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organized human activity, where the claims are directly related to sales activities or behaviors, as stated in the Office Action above. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims are still directed to an abstract idea even though the amended claims include an electronic device.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 11-12 of the remarks stating “Applicant has amended the claims by adding additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application,” and further stating “The claimed subject matter can solve a technical problem,” and on page 13 stating “the claims are integrated into practical applications,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, and when considering the amendments to the claims, the claimed additional elements are not recited in a manner sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims now recite the additional elements of an electronic device, and when considered individually and in combination with the other additional elements previously recited of a trained cost estimation model, the additional elements are still recited in a generic manner. And although the claims recite the electronic device, the feature is recited in a generic manner, which is programed to perform generic computer functions. As stated in 2106.05(b) of the MPEP, the claims must not merely add “a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions” and claiming a controller of an apparatus to carry out the operations of the claims, “does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection”. Therefore the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the trained model is still recited at a high level of generality, and the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the training of the model is actually functioning beyond known functions. When considering the features in combination, they are recited in a generic manner and are merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generically recited computing components. Further, the claims do not reflect an improvement or technical solution to a technical problem. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he 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.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. Although the claims include computer technology such as an electronic device, and a trained cost estimation model, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of delivery cost estimation. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements in budget utilization for successful deliveries, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve delivery cost estimation, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technical solutions to a technical issue, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and as such, the Examiner maintains that 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 21 November 2025, have been fully considered, and in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claims now recite allowable subject matter, and therefore the 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688