DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 09/12/2025, Applicant, on 12/11/2025, amended Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, 14, 17 and 20. Claims 4, 9-11, 15, 16, 18 and 21-23 are as originally or previously presented; and Claims 8, 12 and 19 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. The Claim Objections withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendments.
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-18 and 20-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process), system (machine) or device (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
8. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A .. method for .. environmental impact assessment with exposure of false environmental data, comprising: .. a first plurality of environmental impact components associated with a product, a packaging of the product, and a shipping of the product .. corresponding to a respective vendor across a plurality of vendors .., wherein the first plurality of environmental impact components comprises one or more product description ..; .. obtain first text data corresponding to the first plurality of environmental impact components; .. one or more verified third-party data sources for second text data corresponding to a second plurality of environmental impact components associated with the product, the packaging of the product, and the shipping of the product across the plurality of vendors, wherein the verified third-party data sources are independent from control of a manufacturer of the product; .. one or more verified third-party data sources for text data associated with the product, the packaging of the product, and the shipping of the product across the plurality of vendors, wherein the verified third-party data sources include the one or more product description ..; tokenizing .. the first text data and the second text data into a plurality of semantic tokens; generating .. a plurality of match scores based on relevancy-weighted environment impact phrases .., each match score representing a quantitative correlation strength between a respective semantic token and the environment impact phrases; detecting ... based on the plurality of match scores, negative environmental indicators associated with the first text data; assigning .. differential weights to the first plurality of environmental impact components and the second plurality of environmental impact components, wherein the first plurality of environmental impact components receive lower weights than the second plurality of environmental impact components when the negative environmental indicators are detected; calculating .. product scores for the product, packaging scores for the packaging, and shipping scores for the shipping for each vendor based on the first plurality of weighted environmental impact components and the second plurality of weighted environmental impact components; generating .. a plurality of composite environmental impact scores based on the product scores, packaging scores, and shipping scores, each composite environmental impact score corresponding to a respective vendor of the plurality of vendors; determining .. whether any of the plurality of composite environmental impact scores fall below a sustainability threshold; and generating .. a recommendation for an alternative product having a composite environmental impact score above the sustainability threshold, which is an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because determining an environmental impact score for a product is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. Claims 17 and 20 recite the same abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for the independent Claims, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as extracting, by at least one processor and at a point of sale environment during an active product browsing session, from a plurality of images each .. via a computer vision algorithm, hyperlinks extracted from the plurality of images, scraping, by the at least one processor, the one or more hyperlinks, using a natural language processor, stored inside a searchable data index, by the at least one processor within the active product browsing session, by the at least one processor, a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, A non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 6 and paragraphs 69-80 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-16, 18 and 21-23 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent claims and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16, 21 and 23 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 7, 14, 15, 18 and 22 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because these Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above and a database, a low-level semantic analyzer, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16, 21 and 23 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 7, 14, 15, 18 and 22 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above and a database, a low-level semantic analyzer, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 6 and paragraphs 69-80 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
10. Applicant argues (at pp. 12-13) that, at Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis, “the claims recite a specific technical architecture”, by analogy with DDR Holdings, and are therefore eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner agrees that the claims recite a technical architecture, but respectfully notes that the amended claims also recite an abstract idea falling within the grouping of Mental Processes at Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), as explained in detail at paragraph 8 above in this office action.
11. Applicant further argues (at pp. 13-16) that, at Step 2A Prong Two, “claim 1, as amended, specifies a particular technical solution through a system that first extracts environmental impact components from vendor images and scrapes product description hyperlinks and verified third-party data sources for text data”, and therefore integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional (computer) elements such as “extracting, by at least one processor, .. during an active product browsing session .. from a plurality of images .. via a computer vision algorithm” are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception, and are thus ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101.
12. Applicant also argues (at pp. 17-21) that, at Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility, the evidence required by Berkheimer with regard to the additional elements being conventional and well-understood is not provided by the Office because Figure 6 and paragraphs 69-80 of the Specification do not explain the additional elements, and the claims are therefore eligible at Step 2B because they recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 6 of the Drawings clearly shows a conventional computer system in communication with external networks, and for example paragraph 70 of the Specification states “Computer system 600 can be any well-known computer capable of performing the functions described herein”. Furthermore, paragraph 18 of the Specification also clearly indicates the conventional nature of the technological features (additional elements) of the claims: “FIG. 1 illustrates a real-time environmental impact system. System 100 can be implemented by processing logic that can comprise hardware (e.g., circuitry, dedicated logic, programmable logic, microcode, etc.), software (e.g., instructions executing on a processing device), or a combination thereof. It is to be appreciated that not all elements may be needed to perform the disclosure provided herein. Further, some of the individual workflows described may be performed simultaneously, or in a different order than shown in FIG. 1, as will be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art”. The additional elements therefore do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B of the analysis, and are thus ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623