DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on15 June 2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
claims 6-7, 14-15, and 19-20 have been canceled.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 have been previously canceled.
claims 21-25 are new and have been added.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 21-25 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 June 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 21-25 recite allowable subject matter, as indicated in the Office Action mailed on 16 March 2026, 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, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 21-25 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, 3-5, and 8 are directed to a method, claims 9, 11-13, 16, and 21, are directed to a device (system), and claims 17 and 22-25 are directed to a product of manufacture (computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored), described in paragraph [0103] of the Applicant’s specification as “a decided hardware-based system that performs the specified functions”).
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 one item category into which the target recommended content 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 the second feature information specific to the respective item category being determined based on statistical values of costs of the plurality of sample recommended content items in the respective item category when the plurality of sample recommended content items are successfully delivered, the statistical values comprising at least one of percentiles, mean, or variance of the costs;
determining, at least based on the first feature information and the second feature information and using a cost estimation, an expected initial cost in a contending delivery of the target recommended content item;
determining, a target initial cost in the contending delivery of the target recommended content item,
wherein determining the target initial cost comprises:
adjusting the expected initial cost using a predetermined adjustment coefficient, to obtained an adjusted expected initial cost, the predetermined adjustment coefficient being set to avoid overestimation or underestimation of the expected initial cost;
determining an initial cost upper limit and an initial cost lower limit for the target recommended content item; and
determining the target initial cost based on the adjusted expected initial cost, such that the target initial cost is between the initial cost upper limit and the initial cost lower limit, wherein the target initial cost is determined as a greater one of a first value and a second value, the first value being a product of the expected initial cost determined using a conventional policy-based manner and the initial cost lower limit scaling coefficient, and the second value being a smaller one of a product of the expected initial cost determined using the conventional policy-based manner and the initial cost upper limit scaling coefficient and a product of the expected initial cost determined using the cost estimation and the adjustment coefficient; and
delivering, the target recommended content item to a user group in a recommendation occasion based on the target initial cost.
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, at least one item category into which the target recommended content 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 the second feature information specific to the respective item category being determined based on statistical values of costs of the plurality of sample recommended content items in the respective item category when the plurality of sample recommended content items are successfully delivered, the statistical values comprising at least one of percentiles, mean, or variance of the costs, determining, at least based on the first feature information and the second feature information and using a cost estimation, an expected initial cost in a contending delivery of the target recommended content item, determining, a target initial cost in the contending delivery of the target recommended content item, wherein determining the target initial cost comprises: adjusting the expected initial cost using a predetermined adjustment coefficient, to obtain an adjusted expected initial cost, the predetermined adjustment coefficient being set to avoid overestimation or underestimation of the expected initial cost, determining an initial cost upper limit and an initial cost lower limit for the target recommended content item; and determining the target initial cost based on the adjusted expected initial cost, such that the target initial cost is between the initial cost upper limit and the initial cost lower limit, wherein the target initial cost is determined as a greater one of a first value and a second value, the first value being a product of the expected initial cost determined using a conventional policy-based manner and the initial cost lower limit scaling coefficient, and the second value being a smaller one of a product of the expected initial cost determined using the conventional policy-based manner and the initial cost upper limit scaling coefficient and a product of the expected initial cost determined using the cost estimation and the adjustment coefficient, and determining the expected initial cost of the target recommended content item, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Further, the abstract idea also falls into the grouping for a mathematical concept. Particularly, the steps of adjusting the expected initial cost using a predetermined adjustment coefficient, to obtain an adjusted expected initial cost, the predetermined adjustment coefficient being set to avoid overestimation or underestimation of the expected initial cost, determining the target initial cost based on the adjusted expected initial cost, such that the target initial cost is between the initial cost upper limit and the initial cost lower limit, wherein the target initial cost is determined as a greater one of a first value and a second value, the first value being a product of the expected initial cost determined using a conventional policy-based manner and the initial cost lower limit scaling coefficient, and the second value being a smaller one of a product of the expected initial cost determined using the conventional policy-based manner and the initial cost upper limit scaling coefficient and a product of the expected initial cost determined using the cost estimation and the adjustment coefficient, would be considered mathematical concepts. The MPEP defines “mathematical concepts” as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recite adjusting the expected initial cost using a predetermined adjustment coefficient, determining the target initial cost based on the adjusted expected initial cost, where the target initial cost is determined by greater value for a first and second value which is further determined by cost lower limit scaling coefficient and a cost lower limit scaling coefficient, and where the estimation of the cost and the adjustment coefficient as used to determine product of the expected initial cost, which would fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping and directed to mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas . For example, paragraphs [0071]-[0072] of the specification describes the predetermined adjust coefficient, the cost lower limit scaling coefficient, and the cost upper limit scaling coefficient, and the formulas used (see “Formula 1” and “Formula 2”). Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea directed to a mathematical concept.
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, the electronic device, a trained cost estimation model, the electronic device, and the cost estimation model.
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 elements 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 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16, 21, and 22-25, depending from claims 1, 9, and 17 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the representative independent claim 1, nor aid in the eligibility of the other independent claims 9 and 17. The claims of 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16, 21, and 22-25 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16, 21, and 22-25 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 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16, 21, and 22-25 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 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16, 21, and 22-25 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 15 June 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 13 of the remarks stating “The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea,” and “This is a specific data processing methodology, not an abstract idea of ‘delivery cost estimation’,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, and when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea of delivery cost estimation. The claims recite specific steps in determining target recommended content to a user group based on the determined target initial cost, where the steps fall into the enumerated subgrouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the activities are sales activities or behaviors. The amended claims also now include the steps for determining divided content items into respective item categories, determining successful deliveries of sample recommendations of content items, where the feature information of the items is based on statistical values of costs of the sample recommended content items in respective categories, determining expected initial cost in a delivery of the recommended items, determining a target initial cost for the delivery of the items, and delivering the target recommend content item to a user group, which are all steps that are part of the abstract idea, and considered to be beyond the abstract idea. The claims include steps of mathematical concepts as well, as the steps for determining a target initial cost comprises mathematical concepts such as formulas utilized to determine the target initial cost, as stated in the rejection above. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the amended claim limitations are still directed to and recite an abstract idea of delivery cost estimation.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 13-15 of the remarks stating “The Claims Integrate the Alleged Exception into a Practical Application,” and “Even if, arguendo, the claims were found to recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application,” and “the claims improve the accuracy and reliability of delivery cost estimation technology through a multi-step calibration approach,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when considering the claim amendments, the claims do not recite features and additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the additional elements considered individually and in combination, are still recited in a generic manner. The additional elements are recited at a high-level and are being used to apply the abstract idea with generically recited computing components and a generically recited computer. Although the claims are being carried out with a computer (i.e., the electronic device) and the feature of the trained cost estimation model, the claimed additional elements are still recited in a generic manner and do not 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. The majority of the claim language, even as amended is directed to the abstract idea, and not beyond the abstract idea, as in not considered to be additional elements. For example the steps that now include mathematical features for the output of the cost estimation, are part of the abstract idea, and are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the claims do not reflect an improvement or technical solution to a technical problem. Rather, the claims in this case provide an improvement to the abstract idea, such as improving the accuracy and the reliability of delivery cost estimation. 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, a trained cost estimation model, and the 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 improvements, such as do not provide an improvement to cost estimation technology, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 15 of the remarks stating “The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept,” and “Even if the claims were found not to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 (which Applicant does not concede), the claims nonetheless recite an inventive concept,” and “The Examiner has not provided any evidence under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), that this specific combination of elements is conventional,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not provide an inventive concept. When considering the amendments and the additional elements in combination, are still recited in a generic manner, which are being used to apply the abstract with generically recited components, as stated above. Further, the examiner points out that if it had been concluded under Step 2A, that, e.g., an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion under Step 2B, which includes an evaluation of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05). In this case, the Examiner has not concluded that any of the claim limitations represent insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, any considerations under Berkheimer as to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in this case, are unnecessary. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the claims are not eligible under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis and maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights