DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 01/23/2026. Claims 1, and 3-4 are pending. The amendments have overcome the 103 rejection as amended claim 1 incorporates the allowable subject matter of claim 2 as indicated in OA 03/14/2025 on page 13-17, and also overcome claim objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in previous office action.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on page 6, where applicant points to Ex Parte Desjardins and asserted, “Referring to Claim 1, which recites a specific technical processing framework, does not merely recite mathematical relationships in the abstract. Instead, it recites a specific developing low-carbon and environmentally friendly living habits technical data-processing pipeline, including: "converting real-world life-behavior data into triangular fuzzy numbers defined by (x,a,B)", "performing fuzzy interval arithmetic to propagate uncertainty across multiple time scales", "generating benchmark interval numbers for population-level comparison" and "applying a fuzzy interval comparison mechanism to produce rankings". The applicant respectfully submits that these steps define how uncertainty in carbon-emission estimation is technically modeled, propagated, and compared, rather than merely obtaining a result. More specifically, "wherein the fuzzy interval processing method for the collected and acquired food, clothing, housing and transportation data is: processing the collected and acquired food, clothing, housing and transportation data x to obtain a triangular fuzzy number B =(x,α,β), where (x,α,β) means that the value data x is in an interval [x-α,x+B]' refers to a modeling processing for low-carbon. As in Desjardins, the claims here recite specific data representations and processing rules that constrain the computation and distinguish it from abstract mathematical manipulation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the instant application is different from Desjardins since the claim of Desjardin reciting particular improvements in training a machine learning model, but the instant application does not use any type of training machine learning model. The claim of the instant application is directed to an estimation and ranking method for carbon emission of individual life that includes limitations characterized as abstract idea (e.g., mathematical concepts, see at least steps 2, 3, and 4 of claim 1 as rejected below for details and [0028-0044] figures 1-2). Furthermore, the method claim as recited does not constrain the computation and distinguish it from abstract mathematical concept because the claim recites limitations that perform fuzzy interval processing to obtain a triangular fuzzy number, adding carbon emission corresponding to each behavior, summing fuzzy interval value, dividing to obtain a per capita fuzzy carbon emission value, and ranking, which are characterized as mathematical concept.
Applicant further compare instant claim with claim 3 of example 47 and asserted on page 8, “In amended claim 1, by "guides people to analyze personal carbon emission behavior and develop low-carbon and environmentally friendly living habits", low carbon emission will be leaded. By doing so, the guiding people of analyzing carbon emission behavior and developing low-carbon habits improves the environment quality. The applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim 1 includes similar effect as "enhance security" described in More importantly, the applied sum the fuzzy interval value of the claim 3 of example 47.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because claim 3 of example 47 recites additional elements, such as steps (d), (e), and (f), that reflected the improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. However, the amended claim 1 merely recites “guides people to analyze personal carbon emission behavior and develop low carbon and environmentally friendly living habits”, such additional element is merely recited a result of performing the abstract idea (e.g., calculate and rank carbon emission for individual) or at most mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use, such as carbon emission analyzer that guides people to develop a friendly environment habit. Furthermore, any arguably improvement, such as having a better environment quality, is a direct consequence of performing the abstract idea, such as the estimation and ranking method includes steps 2, 3, and 4 to estimate and rank carbon emission of individual life. MPEP 2106.05(a) states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements” and “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”. In other words, claim 3 of example 47 recites additional elements that reflected the improvement, but any arguably improvement in the instant claim is reflected by the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claim 3 of example 47 and the instant claim is not similar.
Applicant further asserted on page 9-10, “Moreover, the limitations of "the fuzzy interval processing method for the collected and acquired food, clothing, housing and transportation data is: processing the collected and acquired food, clothing, housing and transportation data x to obtain a triangular fuzzy number B =(x,α,β), where (x,α,B) means that the value data x is in an interval [x-α,x+β]" is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. More specifically, the method for analyzing each similar but different habits will not affect the people's main habit but still lead to the better environment quality. Therefore, the amended claim 1 is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Hence the amended claim 1 should have included an inventive concept.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the search for an inventive concept is to evaluate additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(I)). However, the limitation of “the fuzzy interval processing method for the collected and acquired food … interval [x-α,x+β]” as recited above is characterized as the abstract idea under step 2A prong one, rather than the additional element under step 2A prong two. Thus, even though such limitation is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, such limitation is still an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(I) “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions” and MPEP 2106.05(I) “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 line 2 recites “the ranking method of fuzzy interval number”. There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as “the fuzzy interval number comparison method” as antecedently recited. Support is found in [0027].
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method to estimate and rank carbon emission of individual life.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites an estimation and ranking method for carbon emission of individual life, the estimation and ranking method comprising: 2) fuzzy interval processing is performed on the collected and acquired food, clothing, housing and transportation data, and the carbon emission corresponding to each behavior expressed by a fuzzy interval number is calculated according to the carbon emission coefficient of each behavior, wherein the fuzzy interval processing method for the collected and acquired food, clothing, housing, and transportation data is: processing the collected and acquired food, clothing, housing, and transportation data x to obtain a triangular fuzzy number
β
~
=
(
x
,
α
,
β
)
, where
x
,
α
,
β
means that the value data x is in an interval
[
x
-
α
,
x
+
β
]
; 3) adopting fuzzy interval number addition rule, add the carbon emission corresponding to each behavior to obtain a fuzzy interval value of total carbon emissions of the individual on different time scales, then use the same method of adopting fuzzy interval number addition rule to obtain the fuzzy interval value of total carbon emissions of each person in a specific group on different time scales; 4) sum the fuzzy interval value of the total carbon emissions of each person in a specific group on the same time scale, and divide by a total number of people in the specific group on the same time scale to obtain a per capita fuzzy carbon emission value, and then obtain a benchmark interval number, then using the fuzzy interval number comparison method, the ranking of the carbon emissions of individuals in a specific group on the same time scale is obtained. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least figure 1 [0032-0036] table 4 describes the step 2 to perform fuzzy interval processing that involves multiplication to calculate fuzzy interval number, [0037-0040] describes the addition step to obtain total of carbon emissions daily for step 3, [0041-0044] describes the summing step to obtain weekly, monthly, or annually carbon emission to obtain total carbon emission of each person in weekly, monthly, or annually, and divide to obtain average and using comparison method to rank the carbon emissions of individuals for step 4. Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements a step of collecting and acquiring personal daily life food, clothing, housing, and transportation data. However, such step is recited at a high level of generality and at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity because it is mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the claim recites a limitation “guides people to analyze personal carbon emission behavior and develop low-carbon and environmentally friendly living habits”, is considered as a result of performing the abstract idea to guide people and develop low carbon and environmentally friendly living habits or is at most considered as mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea into a field of use, such as carbon emission analyzer that guides people to develop a friendly environment habit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, as discussed with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional element in the claim amounts to mere data gathering, and determines to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) section (i), indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network, is well-understood, routing, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recite the step of ranking (4), wherein such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula such as getting a reference interval number, a midpoint and radius of such interval and using the recited formula in claim 3 to obtain a credibility measure to perform the ranking method based on the calculated credibility measure (see at least [0041-0044]). The claim does not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
claim 4 further recites the personal daily life of the individual's daily life includes: occurrence period, behavioral type, specific behavior, duration, and quantity, such limitation merely describes the data being collected to be performed in the mathematical algorithm recited in claim 1. Thus, such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least data in table 1 and table 2). The claim does not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached on (571) 272-3702. 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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182