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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were rejected in the Final Office action mailed on 04/01/2026. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 07/01/2026, amended Claims 1, 11, and 20. Herein this Non-Final Office Action, Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for Claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 9-10, Applicant summarizes the previous rejection and amendments, and asserts that that the amended claimset overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner does not agree.
On Pages 10-11, regarding “Step 2A, Prong One,” Applicant argues that “Claim 1 does not fall in the mathematical concepts or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas.” Examiner does not agree as discussed in detail below.
On Pages 10-11, Applicant argues “The Office Action asserts that the determination of a predicted resource cost using a prediction model is a mathematical concept and a method of organizing human activity (specifically, "marketing or sales activities" and "following rules"). However, Applicant respectfully disagrees with this assertion, particularly in view of the present amendments to claim 1. First, amended claim 1 is not a mere mathematical relationship or calculation. The claim specifically recites a training step that builds the prediction model that has a specific structure with a specific function. Further, the training step is a structured machine-learning training process applied to delivery-application data; it is not the kind of "mental process", formula, or pen-and-paper calculation that the MPEP Section 2106.04(a)(2)(1) groupings address. The MPEP cautions that a claim does not recite a mathematical concept merely because it uses mathematics as a tool to perform operations on data; it is only when the claim itself sets forth a mathematical relationship as the focus of the claim that the grouping applies. Here, the focus of the claim is the privacy-preserving training and use of a prediction model to control data delivery in a real-world data delivery application.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I states “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I.A states “Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: . . iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I.C states “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (Emphasis added).
Examiner responds that the “training” done to create the model is identified as an additional element, i.e. not a part of the abstract idea. The model itself, and the use of the model to calculate the predicted value, is a part of the recited abstract idea (i.e. at least mathematical concepts). As cited above, the MPEP provides ample guidance supporting Examiner’s determination that the model, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation includes one or more equations, i.e. it would be unreasonable to consider the “prediction model” as a non-mathematical model, e.g. a clay model.
On Page 11, Applicant argues “Second, amended claim 1 is not directed to a method of organizing human activity. The claim does not recite any commercial or legal interaction between persons, nor any rule of personal behavior. The claim recites obtaining aggregated, non-identity-revealing delivery data from a software "data delivery application," training a prediction model in the computing device, and then the computing device controlling delivery of data by the same application. There is no human-to-human or human-to-computer transactional act recited. This is materially different from the MPEP examples of "marketing or sales" such as bidding, pricing negotiation, or auctioning, which intrinsically require human commercial behavior.” Examiner does not agree.
First, Examiner responds that Step 2A Prong 1 merely asks if the claim “recites” an abstract idea, and Step 2A as a whole (Prongs 1&2) determines if the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II states “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.”
Examiner responds that the use of a computer does not preclude the recitation of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” As outlined in more detail in the rejection section below, gathering past performance data to predict a cost is at least “commercial or legal interactions.”
On Page 11, Applicant argues “Third, amended claim 1 expressly recites the technological problem and the technological solution, in the language of the specification. The specification as originally filed in the present application describes, for example, at paras. [0002] and [0034]-[0037], that conventional realtime bidding (RTB) approaches rely on identity-revealing per-user behavior event sequences and that the resulting reliance on real-time and precise user data raises data-protection concerns, while the multi-day delay between an event and an event report makes real-time feedback imprecise. The present disclosure's solution (see, e.g., para. [0036]) is to obtain a prediction model "based on a long term aggregated data, thereby protecting user data security and guaranteeing the effects of data delivery." Amended claim 1 now expressly captures this technological improvement: the delivery data is aggregated over a first time window, the first time window is longer than the time delay between an event and its report, and the trained model is then used to control delivery without requiring real-time identity-revealing user data. Claim I is therefore directed to a privacy preserving technical improvement to the operation of a data delivery application, not to any abstract idea.” Examiner does not agree.
First, Examiner responds that Step 2A Prong 1 merely asks if the claim “recites” an abstract idea, and Step 2A Prong 2 determines if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application by, for example, providing an improvement to technology under MPEP 2106.05(a).
MPEP 2106.05(a)II states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
MPEP2106.05(A) states “[T]he claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.”
Examiner responds that providing more accurate cost determination is an improvement in the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the claims do not include the generation of a bid or execution of an auction. Thus, even if the specification included an improvement in an bid-auction system, the claim would not include such improvement.
On Pages 11-13, regarding “Step 2A, Prong Two,” Applicant argues that “The Claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” Applicant further argues that “Even assuming, arguendo, that claim 1 recites some abstract idea, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the technological field of data delivery applications.” Examiner does not agree.
On Page 12 Applicant argues “(i) A specific structural training architecture. Claim I expressly specifies that training the prediction model describing an association relationship between delivery data and a predicted resource cost, which has a specifical purpose in the data delivery application. This is concrete training methodology, not a generic "apply machine learning" recital. The Office's expressed concern at page 6 of the Office Action that "the specific machine learning architecture is not claimed" is now squarely addressed by the amendments to the claims.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that Claim 1 recites the limitation “training a prediction model based on the delivery data, and the first and second time windows, . . .” The “training” claimed merely limits the type of information used, and the functionality of the output of the “training,” i.e. the “prediction model.” However, the Claim does not limit how the training occurs, but merely limits that it occurs. Therefore, the training is determined to be merely applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component as a tool in its ordinary capacity per MPEP 2106.05(f). See also PEG Example 47 Claim 2.
On Page 12 Applicant argues “(ii) A specific data structure tied to a real-world technical problem. Claim 1 specifies that the delivery data is aggregated data collected over the first time window without reliance on real-time identity-revealing user behavior data, and that the first time window is greater than the delay between an event of data delivery and an event report. These limitations directly correspond to the privacy-preservation problem and the report-delay problem that motivated the invention. (See, e.g., specification, paras. [0002] and [0034]-[0037]). They are not nominal labels on data; they constrain how the data must be obtained and used, and they thereby place meaningful limits on the claim.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that Claim 1 does not include a negative limitation regarding the contents of the “delivery data.” Claim 1 merely recites “obtaining, by a computing device and from the data delivery application, delivery data associated with a plurality of delivery time points in a first time window, the delivery data comprising: a resource cost associated with a delivery time point in the plurality of delivery time points, and a contribution that is caused by the resource cost to a delivery purpose, wherein the delivery data is associated with data being delivered to users of the data delivery application at each of the plurality of delivery time points.” There are not limitations regarding privacy or the timing of when or how the “delivery data” is obtained.
Further, Applicant has not shown that the privacy concerns of Paragraphs 2 and 34-37 are directly tied to a problem in “technology.” There are several examples of privacy concerns in commercial transactions and auction, and non-technological solutions, e.g. a blind auction. In order to achieve patent subject matter eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(a), the claims must provide a “technical” solution to a “technical” problem, i.e. an improvement in the abstract idea itself, e.g. a sale or auction, does not provide a patent eligible improvement in technology.
On Page 12 Applicant argues “(iii) A real-world deployment action that controls operation of the data delivery application. Critically, claim 1 now recites the following action: "controlling, by the computing device, data delivery in the data delivery application based on the predicted resource cost, such that data is delivered to one or more users of the data delivery application at one or more time points within the subsequent time window with mitigated impact of the time delay on accuracy of the data delivery." The predicted resource cost is no longer a stand-alone numerical output; it is used by the computing device to control how the data delivery application actually delivers data to users. This makes the present claim materially more analogous to PEG Example 47 Claim 3 (in which a detection produces a remedial action of dropping packets and blocking traffic) than to PEG Example 47 Claim 2 (which merely outputs a label). Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action's analogy to Example 47 Claim 2 (see Office Action, p. 6) is thus not proper.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that the only specification support for how the “computing device” controls data delivery “based on the predicted resource cost” is for the “computing device” to administer an auction. See Specification Paragraphs 2, 37, and 54. Although this portion of the Specification (barely) provides enough support for this limitation to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the execution of an auction is distinguishable from the remedial action “(e) dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time; and (f) blocking future traffic from the source address” in PEG Example 47 Claim 3.
On Pages 12-13, Applicant argues “(iv) An identifiable technical improvement to a particular technology. Paras. [0036], [0037], [0054], and [0075]-[0077] of the specification as originally filed in the present application, describes in concrete terms how the claimed combination operates: by aggregating delivery data over a window longer than the report delay and training the prediction model on the aggregated data, the system can predict and allocate resource cost across subsequent time windows without ingesting real-time identity-revealing user behavior. This is precisely the kind of discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution that MPEP Section 2106.0S(a) deems indicative of a technical improvement. Contrary to the Office's characterization, the underlying problem is not a mere "customer satisfaction problem" - the specification's express concern with "data protection" (para. [0002]) and the multi-day "delay between the event and the event report" (para. [0034]) are technological constraints on how a data delivery application can operate, and the claimed combination provides a concrete technical mechanism for operating in spite of those constraints. Considered as an ordered combination, the recited additional elements transform the claim into a particular, concrete application that improves the operation of the data delivery application itself They impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea by tying the prediction-and-control pipeline to a specific structural model, a privacy-respecting data regime, and a real-world delivery-control action. Claim I is therefore not "directed to" any judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(a)II states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” (Emphasis added).
Examiner responds that Specification Paragraphs 2 and 34 does not show that the “data protection” and "delay between the event and the event report" are “technological constraints” (emphasis added), i.e. limitations on the technology itself (i.e. limitation to the functioning of a computer). The claims, as a whole, provides an improvement to the recited abstract idea of better predicting a cost to be used in a bid/auction system (not explicitly claimed).
On Pages 13-14, regarding “Step 2B,” Applicant argues that “The Claim recites significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.” Applicant further argues “For at least the reasons set forth above, even if any judicial exception were considered to be recited, claim 1 contains additional elements that, individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. The combination of (a) collecting aggregated delivery data over a window longer than the event-report delay, (b) training a prediction model, and (c) controlling delivery in the data delivery application based on the predicted resource cost, is not a routine, wellunderstood, or conventional way of operating a data delivery application. Real-time bidding (RTB) systems acknowledged in para. [0002] of the specification rely on the opposite approach - they ingest identity-revealing real-time per-user feedback. Rejecting that conventional reliance and replacing it with the claimed pipeline is the inventive concept that confers eligibility under Step 2B. Even assuming arguendo that amended claim 1 recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, the claim nonetheless recites significantly more, because its additional elements-both individually and as an ordered combination-are not wellunderstood, routine, or conventional in the relevant field. Significantly, the Office itself acknowledges (see Office Action at page 26) that the claims are not rejected over any prior art of record, and states that "the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of elements" recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20. While Section 101 and Sections 102/103 are distinct inquiries, the Office's express finding that the ordered combination is non-obvious over ten prior-art references is a strong indicator that the ordered combination is non-conventional under Step 2B. Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites statutory subject matter. For reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1, independent claims 11 and 20, and the claims depending from independent claims 1, 11, and 20, also do not recite a judicial exception. Based on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite statutory subject matter. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection are respectfully requested.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05.I.A states “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); . . .”
MPEP 2106.05(f) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Although the particulars of the abstract idea claimed may be novel and non-obvious, the claim as a whole amounts to merely using the computer elements as a tool to apply the recited abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f), and therefore does not provide “significantly more.”
Examiner notes that MPEP2106.05(d) provides several examples of well-understood routine and conventional computer activity, including:
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and [AltContent: rect]
vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, Claim 1, along with analogous independent claims and dependent claims, remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 states “training, by the computing device, a prediction model based on the delivery data, and the first and second time windows, the prediction model indicating an association relationship between delivery data associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a third time window and a predicted resource cost, the predicted resource cost indicating a total resource cost corresponding to a fourth time window that follows the third time window, a length of the third time window being smaller than the first length, and a length of the fourth time window being equal to the second length; [[and]] determining, by the computing device, a predicted resource cost based on previous delivery data in the data delivery application according to the prediction model, the previous delivery data being associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window, and the predicted resource cost being associated with a subsequent time window after the previous time window.” (Emphasis added). It is clear that the claim recites “a predicted resource cost . . . indicating a total resource cost corresponding to a fourth time window that follows the third time window” and “a predicted resource cost . . . associated with a subsequent time window after the previous time window” are two separate values. Although the drafting style may be unconventional, the claim has clearly defined two separate “cost[s],” and therefore the claim is not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding the interpretation of Claim 6, Claim 1 recites, in the last paragraph, “determining, by the computing device, a predicted resource cost based on previous delivery data in the data delivery application according to the prediction model, the previous delivery data being associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window, and the predicted resource cost being associated with a subsequent time window after the previous time window,” and Claim 6 recites “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining previous delivery data associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window, the previous delivery data comprising: . . .” (Emphasis added). The limitation of Claim 6 of “obtaining previous delivery data associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window” is referencing the “previous delivery data,” which is “a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window.” The further language in Claim 6 of “associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window” is not a limitation on the “previous delivery data,” which would likely yield a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but an explanatory reference that the “previous delivery data” obtained in Claim 6 is the “previous delivery data” of Claim 1, which is “associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window.” Because the language of “associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window” in Claim 6 merely clarifies the reference to the “previous delivery data” of Claim 1, the scope of Claim 6 is the same as if Claim 6 recited “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining the previous delivery data, the previous delivery data comprising: . . .”
A similar interpretation to the interpretation of Claims 1 and 6 discuss above is extended to the entire claimset.
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.
Overview of Analysis
The subject matter eligibility analysis comprises: Step 1 (i.e. Does the claim fall within one of the four stator categories, e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?), Step 2A (Is the claim “directed to” a judicial exception, e.g. abstract idea, natural phenomena, or law of nature?), and Step 2B (i.e. Does the claim recite “additional elements” that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception?). MPEP 2106.III.
Step 2A is a two-prong analysis. MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A Prong-One first determines whether the claim merely “recites” (i.e. “sets forth” or “describes”) a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1. Then, Step 2A Prong-Two determines if the claim “recites” “additional elements” that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (e.g. if the recited additional elements do not “integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application,” then, Step 2A would conclude that the claim is “directed to” the recited judicial exception.). MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 recite a method (i.e. a process), Claims 11-19 recite an electronic device (i.e. a machine or manufacture), and Claim 20 recites an electronic device (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
“obtaining, . . . delivery data associated with a plurality of delivery time points in a first time window, the delivery data comprising: a resource cost associated with a delivery time point in the plurality of delivery time points, and a contribution that is caused by the resource cost to a delivery purpose,
wherein the delivery data is associated with data being delivered to users . . . at each of the plurality of delivery time points;
determining, . . . , a second time window, the second time window being specified by a data provider to verify whether the contribution meets the delivery purpose, a first length of the first time window being greater than a second length of the second time window, and the first length being greater than a time delay between an event of data delivery and an event report corresponding to the event; and
[creating] a prediction model based on the delivery data, and the first and second time windows,
the prediction model indicating an association relationship between delivery data associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a third time window and a predicted resource cost, the predicted resource cost indicating a total resource cost corresponding to a fourth time window that follows the third time window, a length of the third time window being smaller than the first length, and a length of the fourth time window being equal to the second length; [[and]]
determining, . . . , a predicted resource cost based on previous delivery data . . . according to the prediction model, the previous delivery data being associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window, and the predicted resource cost being associated with a subsequent time window after the previous time window; and
controlling, . . . , data delivery . . . based on the predicted resource cost, such that data is delivered to one or more users . . . at one or more time points within the subsequent time window with mitigated impact of the time delay on accuracy of the data delivery.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) obtaining deliver data including cost associated with a delivery time and a contribution, (2) determining a second time window specified by a provider to verify whether the contribution meets the delivery purpose, (3) a prediction model based on the delivery data and time windows, (4) the model indicating relationships between delivery parameters, (5) determining a predicted resource cost based on certain parameters, and (6) controlling data delivery based on cost (Per Specification Paragraphs 2, 37, and 54, this “control” includes implementing an auction. See also Paragraphs 39-54.) all of which are:
mathematical relationships (i.e. the relationship between delivery data, cost, and time windows) and mathematical formulas or equations, (i.e. the prediction model), and mathematical calculations (i.e. the use of the prediction model and determination of a cost), which are mathematical concepts, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I,
managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people (i.e. performing a delivery at a certain time is at least “following rules or instructions”) and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. performing an auction to control a sale/delivery, scheduling a delivery, predicting a price are at least “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and
observations (i.e. the delivery data is an observation of data delivery) and evaluation (i.e. prediction model that represents a relationship based of certain received information), which are mental processes, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.
The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “computer” implementing the method, “data delivery application,” “computing device,” and “training . . . a prediction model”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “mathematical relationships,” “mathematical formulas or equations,” “mathematical calculations,” “managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people,” “commercial or legal interactions,” “observations,” and “evaluations,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) “computer” implementing the method,
(ii) “data delivery application,”
(iii) “computing device,” and
(iv) “training . . . a prediction model” based on the delivery data, and the first and second time windows.
The additional elements of (i) “computer” (Fig. 9 and ¶117 shows “computing device 900.”), (ii) “data delivery application” (¶131 shows “A computer program (also known as a program, software, software application, script, or code) may be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, and it may be deployed in any form, including as a stand-alone program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment.”), (iii) “computing device” (Fig. 9 and ¶117 shows “computing device 900.”), and (iv) “training . . . a prediction model” (¶75, ¶77, and ¶93 discusses training the model, but does not discuss how, e.g. specific training method or algorithm, the model is trained. Additionally, in light of ¶19 and ¶128 any training known in the art could be used.), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 9 shows elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, when viewed with the abstract idea in the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide a patent eligible improvement to technology per MPEP 2106.05(a).
The (i) “computer,” (ii) “data delivery application,” (iii) “computing device,” and (iv) “training . . . a prediction model,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 9 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 9 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) “computer,” (ii) “data delivery application,” (iii) “computing device,” and (iv) “training . . . a prediction model,” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 9 shows elements in combination), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 recite the abstract idea of:
“wherein determining the prediction model comprises: with respect to the delivery time point in the plurality of delivery time points in the first time window, determining an intermediate model based on an inverse proportional function that describes a degree of an impact of the resource cost on the contribution; and determine the prediction model based on the intermediate model and the delivery data.” (Claim 2).
“wherein the inverse proportional function is a linear inverse proportional function represented by a group of linear parameters.” (Claim 3).
“wherein determining the prediction model based on the intermediate model and the delivery data comprises: determining a group of candidate values for the group of linear parameters based on the linear inverse proportional function and the delivery data; and representing the prediction model by the group of candidate values.” (Claim 4).
“wherein determining a group of candidate values comprises: with respect to the delivery time point in the plurality of delivery time points in the first time window, determining the group of candidate values by updating the linear inverse proportional function with the resource cost associated with the delivery time point and the contribution caused by the resource cost to the delivery purpose” (Claim 5).
“obtaining previous delivery data associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window, the previous delivery data comprising: a previous resource cost associated with a previous delivery time point in the plurality of previous delivery time points, and a previous contribution caused by the previous resource cost to the delivery purpose; and determining a predicted resource cost associated with the subsequent time window based on the prediction model and the previous delivery data.” (Claim 6).
“wherein determining the predicted resource cost associated with the subsequent time window comprises: obtaining a unit cost and a resource threshold that are specified by the data provider; and determining a predicted resource cost associated with the subsequent time window based on the prediction model and the previous delivery data under constraints of the unit cost and the resource threshold.” (Claim 7).
“wherein determining the predicted resource cost under the constraint of the unit cost comprises: determining a plurality of candidate resource costs based on the prediction model and the previous delivery data; and selecting, from the plurality of candidate resource costs, a candidate resource cost that meets the constraint of the unit cost as the predicted resource cost, the unit cost being represented by the candidate resource costs and a predicted contribution corresponding to the candidate resource cost.” (Claim 8).
“wherein determining the predicted resource cost under the constraint of the resource threshold comprises: determining the plurality of candidate resource costs under the constraint of the resource threshold, the plurality of candidate resource costs being below than the resource threshold. (Claim 9).
“wherein the first length of the first time window is greater than a time delay between a time point when the contribution is received and the time point.” (Claim 10).
Dependent Claims 2-10, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-10 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations merely limit the scope of the abstract idea (i.e. mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity), and do not introduce further “additional elements.” Thus, the elements of Claims 2-10 (i.e. elements of Claim 1) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite additional generic computer and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-10 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-10, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-10 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-10 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-10 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of:
“. . . obtaining, . . . , delivery data associated with a plurality of delivery time points in a first time window, the delivery data comprising: a resource cost associated with a delivery time point in the plurality of delivery time points, and a contribution that is caused by the resource cost to a delivery purpose, wherein the delivery data is associated with data being delivered to users of . . . at the plurality of delivery time points;
determining, . . . , a second time window, the second time window being specified by a data provider to verify whether the contribution meets the delivery purpose, a first length of the first time window being greater than a second length of the second time window, and the first length being greater than a time delay between an event of data delivery and an event report corresponding to the event;
training
determining; and
controlling data delivery . . . based on the predicted resource cost, such that data is delivered to one or more users . . . at one or more time points within the subsequent time window with mitigated impact of the time delay on accuracy of the data delivery.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) obtaining deliver data including cost associated with a delivery time and a contribution, (2) determining a second time window specified by a provider to verify whether the contribution meets the delivery purpose, (3) a prediction model based on the delivery data and time windows, (4) the model indicating relationships between delivery parameters, (5) determining a predicted resource cost based on certain parameters, and (6) controlling data delivery based on cost (Per Specification Paragraphs 2, 37, and 54, this “control” includes implementing an auction. See also Paragraphs 39-54.) all of which are:
mathematical relationships (i.e. the relationship between delivery data, cost, and time windows) and mathematical formulas or equations, (i.e. the prediction model), and mathematical calculations (i.e. the use of the prediction model and determination of a cost), which are mathematical concepts, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I,
managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people (i.e. performing a delivery at a certain time is at least “following rules or instructions”) and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. performing an auction to control a sale/delivery, scheduling a delivery, predicting a price are at least “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and
observations (i.e. the delivery data is an observation of data delivery) and evaluation (i.e. prediction model that represents a relationship based of certain received information), which are mental processes, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.
The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “An electronic device, comprising a computer processor coupled to a computer-readable memory unit, the memory unit comprising instructions that when executed by the computer processor implements a method for delivery management in a data delivery application”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “mathematical relationships,” “mathematical formulas or equations,” “mathematical calculations,” and “managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people,” and “commercial or legal interactions” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the mathematical concepts or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) An electronic device,
(ii) a computer processor, and
(iii) computer-readable memory unit, and
(iv) data delivery application.
The additional elements of (i) An electronic device (Fig. 9 and ¶117 shows “computing device 900.”), (ii) a computer processor (Fig. 9 and ¶117-18 shows “processing unit 910.”), (iii) computer-readable memory unit (Fig. 9 and ¶¶117-19 shows “memory 920.”), and (iv) “data delivery application” (¶131 shows “A computer program (also known as a program, software, software application, script, or code) may be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, and it may be deployed in any form, including as a stand-alone program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 9 shows elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, when viewed with the abstract idea in the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide a patent eligible improvement to technology per MPEP 2106.05(a).
The (i) electronic device, (ii) computer processor, (iii) computer-readable memory unit, and (iv) data delivery application, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 9 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 9 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) electronic device, (ii) computer processor, (iii) computer-readable memory unit, and (iv) data delivery application, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 9 shows elements in combination), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 12-19 recite the abstract idea of:
. . . wherein determining the prediction model comprises: with respect to the delivery time point in the plurality of delivery time points in the first time window, determining an intermediate model based on an inverse proportional function that describes a degree of an impact of the resource cost on the contribution; and determine the prediction model based on the intermediate model and the delivery data. (Claim 12).
. . . wherein the inverse proportional function is a linear inverse proportional function represented by a group of linear parameters. (Claim 13).
. . . wherein determining the prediction model based on the intermediate model and the delivery data comprises: determining a group of candidate values for the group of linear parameters based on the linear inverse proportional function and the delivery data; and representing the prediction model by the group of candidate values. (Claim 14).
. . . wherein determining a group of candidate values comprises: with respect to the delivery time point in the plurality of delivery time points in the first time window, determining the group of candidate values by updating the linear inverse proportional function with the resource cost associated with the delivery time point and the contribution caused by the resource cost to the delivery purpose. (Claim 15).
. . . the method further comprising: obtaining previous delivery data associated with a plurality of previous delivery time points in a previous time window, the previous delivery data comprising: a previous resource cost associated with a previous delivery time point in the plurality of previous delivery time points, and a previous contribution caused by the previous resource cost to the delivery purpose; and determining a predicted resource cost associated with the subsequent time window based on the prediction model and the previous delivery data. (Claim 16).
. . . wherein determining the predicted resource cost associated with the subsequent time window comprises: obtaining a unit cost and a resource threshold that are specified by the data provider; and determining a predicted resource cost associated with the subsequent time window based on the prediction model and the previous delivery data under constraints of the unit cost and the resource threshold. (Claim 17).
. . . wherein determining the predicted resource cost under the constraint of the unit cost comprises: determining a plurality of candidate resource costs based on the prediction model and the previous delivery data; and selecting, from the plurality of candidate resource costs, a candidate resource cost that meets the constraint of the unit cost as the predicted resource cost, the unit cost being represented by the candidate resource costs and a predicted contribution corresponding to the candidate resource cost. (Claim 18).
. . . wherein determining the predicted resource cost under the constraint of the resource threshold comprises: determining the plurality of candidate resource costs under the constraint of the resource threshold, the plurality of candidate resource costs being below than the resource threshold. (Claim 19).
Dependent Claims 12-19, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 12-19 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations merely limit the scope of the abstract idea (i.e. mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity), and do not introduce further “additional elements.” Thus, the elements of Claims 12-19 (i.e. elements of Claim 11) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite additional generic computer and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use just as in Claim 11. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 12-19 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 11. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 11 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 12-19, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 11. Therefore, Claims 12-19 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 12-19 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 11. Therefore, Claims 12-19 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20 recite elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claim 11. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Reasons for No Art Rejection
Claims 1-20 are not rejected over the prior art of record.
The Closest prior art of record is:
US-20240422235-A1 (“Okuno”);
US-20100191600-A1 (“Sideman”);
US-20080022301-A1 (“Aloizos”);
US-20030172165-A1 (“Xu”);
US-20230103048-A1 (“Eberstein”);
CN-114092125-A (“Ji”);
CN-115204922-A (“Song”);
CN-109003140-A (“Shi”);
WO-2018055506-A1 (“Yellin”); and
“Online banner advertisement scheduling for advertising effectiveness” (“Kim” Computers & Industrial Engineering Volume 140, February 2020, 106226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106226).
The Following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for no art rejection:
Okuno shows determining the time frame for delivering a printable advertisement based on a desired delivery schedule, and provisioning the advertisements to printers to satisfy the delivery requirement.
Sideman shows simulating a series of advertisement auctions for a future series of available time slots in a delivery network. The simulation can be used to advise customers (i.e. advertisers) on an optimal “per exposure” bid price to achieve the desired range of target users. Although the customer can verify the auction information, Sideman does not explicitly teach what auction information is verified.
Aloizos shows matching advertisements to time slots with varying prices for different times. The time slot and advertisement are matched based on a weighted budget based on the time slot, the offered price, the asking price, and a comparison between the rate-determinative data of the advertiser and the rate-determinative data of the television station. The actual price of the advertisement can be based on supply and demand, demographic that is being targeted, day part, number of impressions, and the like for a particular time.
Xu shows calculating a cost of receiving multicast data which is dependent on start and end times.
Eberstein shows receiving actual advertisement log including specific time slots and costs, and actual traffic to advertiser’s web page, then correlating the data to determine actual conversion performance and peak exposure times.
Ji shows receiving target release information and corresponding release effect parameter (i.e. click rate/ conversion), and determining future target release information.
Song shows predicting conversion rate based on historical content conversion data for a target time period comprising the current time period and a future time period to create a delivery index.
Shi shows using the expected and actual advertising of n time window of the ith time window to predict future time window such that the budget control of the advertiser is more accurate, further improving the ROI of the advertiser. Although Shi solves a similar problem to the instant claims, Shi does not explicitly teach much of the details of the instant claims.
Yellin shows an optimized content delivery network for the wireless “last mile” by scheduling and delaying transmission of data based on, in part, hardware and software costs of the data transmission and predicted user activity.
Kim shows that the effectiveness of advertisement (i.e. click through rate) can be dependent on the timeslot of advertisement delivery.
Generally, the closest prior art teaches (1) scheduling transmission of data (Okuno, Yellin, and Kim), (2) predicting future time slots (Sideman, Ji, Song, and Shi), (3) allocating data transmissions to time slots (Aloizos, Shi, and Yellin), or (4) pricing transmission of data (Sideman, Aloizos, Xu, Eberstein, and Yellin).
With respect to independent Claims 1, 11, and 20, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of features and limitations. Although the prior art of record teaches related concepts, the art does not teach the specific configuration of the independent claims.
Dependent Claims 2-10 depend on Claim 1, and Dependent Claims 12-19 depends on Claim 11, and therefore are also not rejected via dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights