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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 14, 2026 has been entered.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 21-27 recite a method, Claims 28-34 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium and Claims 35-40 recite a system and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
The claims as a whole recites a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium and a system for determining the amount of carbon avoided by a user by performing a particular activity and determining the amount of corresponding points for the user based on the particular activity for updating the user’s total points, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts for Mental Processes. Additionally, the claims as a whole recite a manner for managing user’s points based on the receipt of activities of the user, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts for Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
(Claim 21) A computer-implemented method comprising:
(Claim 28) [A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations comprising:]
(Claim 35) [A system comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations comprising:]
receiving pre-generated behavior data that is associated with use of a particular online service by a user, wherein one or more carbon emitting activities are avoided through the use of the particular on-line service by the user, [wherein the pre-generated behavior data is received using an application programming interface configured to analyze different data formats associated with a sender of the pre-generated behavior data];
identifying, as an identified activity type, an activity type that is associated with the particular on-line service;
identifying a particular algorithm that is pre-associated with an identified activity type that is associated with the particular on-line service, wherein the particular algorithm comprises at least one specific mathematical formula for calculating carbon emissions based on geographical location and emission factors;
performing, to generate filtered pre-generated behavior data, [data collating] operations on the pre-generated behavior data to remove redundant or irrelevant data for calculation of carbon emissions with respect to the identified activity type;
determining, based at least on the particular algorithm and the filtered pre-generated behavior data, a quantity of uncollected points that represents an amount of carbon that is calculated for the one or more carbon emitting activities that were avoided through the use of the particular on-line service by the user;
and determining that a user request by the user has been received [through a graphical user interface] for the quantity of uncollected points that represents an amount of carbon that is calculated for the one or more carbon emitting activities that were avoided through the use of the particular on-line service by the user to be added to a total quantity of collected points that represents an amount of carbon that is calculated for one or more carbon emitting activities that were avoided through the use of multiple on-line services by the user;
in response to determining that the user request by the user has been received for the quantity of uncollected points to be added to the total quantity of collected points, adding, to generate an updated total quantity of collected points with the user, (i) the quantity of uncollected points to (ii) the total quantity of collected points;
storing data that associates the updated total quantity of collected points with the user;
and providing, for display, [an updated graphical user interface that identifies] (i) each of the one or more carbon emitting activities that were avoided through the use of the particular on-line service by the user, (ii) an updated total quantity of uncollected points, and (iii) an updated total quantity of collected points for each of the one or more carbon emitting activities that were avoided through the use of the particular on-line service by the user, and for which the user has previously requested accumulation.
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea.
Here the claims are directed to mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts directed to determining the amount of carbon avoided by a user by performing a particular activity and determining the amount of corresponding points for the user based on the particular activity for updating the user’s total points, (See paragraphs 3-5, and 7). Additionally, the claims are directed certain methods of organizing human activity in particular managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts directed to a manner for managing user’s points based on the receipt of activities of the user. (See paragraphs 18-19).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), it falls under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions), it falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. Id.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The Examiner views the following as the additional elements:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium. (See paragraph 165 of the Specification.)
One or more instructions. (See paragraph 158 of the Specification.)
A computer system. (See paragraphs 103-104 of the Specification.)
A system. (See paragraphs 103-104 of the Specification.)
One or more computers. (See paragraphs 103-104 of the Specification.)
One or more computer memory devices. (See paragraph 111 of the Specification.)
One or more computer memories. (See paragraph 111 of the Specification.)
A graphical user interface/an updated graphical user interface. (See paragraphs 103 and 167 of the Specification.)
Data collating. (See paragraph 38 of the Specification.)
Application programming interface. (See paragraph 107 of the Specification)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Regarding “wherein the pre-generated behavior data is received using an application programming interface configured to analyze different data formats associated with a sender of the pre-generated behavior data” the examiner views this limitations as a results oriented step given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this limitation is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and paragraph 27 of the Specification)
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See Id.) Accordingly, even in combination 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.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method and system that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22, 29, and 36 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of a generic acquisition module (See paragraph 112), application (See paragraph 112), module (See paragraph 112), determination module (See paragraph 112), calculation module (See paragraph 112), and processing module (See paragraph 112) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claims 22, 29, and 36 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 23-27, 30-34, and 37-40 further define the abstract idea as identified and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claims 23-27, 30-34, and 37-40 are considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments on pages 11-14 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite specific technical data processing steps that cannot be practically performed in the human mind and go beyond mere organizing of activity. Specifically, the claims recite: performing, to generate filtered pre-generated behavior data, data collating operations on the pre-generated behavior data to remove redundant or irrelevant data for calculation of carbon emissions with respect to the identified activity type
According to Applicant, this data is digital behavior logs generated by servers or application, where a person cannot receive signals from an online service, nor can it perform data collating operations on such digital structures to generate filtered pre-generated behavior data. Similar to SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., where the Federal Circuit held the claims directed to analyzing data packets and computer network security and not to an abstract idea as a person cannot process such data, the instant claims recite processing server-generated behavior logs to filter irrelevant digital fields (e.g., transaction amount) is a technical operation not a mental one.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, first noting the claims do not refer to the pre-generated behavior data as digital behavior logs generated by servers or applications but rather receiving the data associated with use of a particular online service by a user or that the pre-generated behavior data represents a specific type of data structure. Referring to the asserted information the Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the particular type of operation performed (i.e. data collating) is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. performing, to generate filtered pre-generated behavior data, operations on the pre-generated behavior data to remove redundant or irrelevant data for calculation of carbon emissions with respect to the identified activity type”). The Examiner does not view the claims to be similar to those in SRI, where the claims specifically recite at least “detecting, by the network monitors, suspicious network activity based on analysis of network traffic data selected from one or more of the following categories: {network packet data transfer commands, network packet data transfer errors, network packet data volume, network connection requests, network connection denials, error codes included in a network packet, network connection acknowledgements, and network packets indicative of well-known network-service protocols};” where as in the instant claims the claims receive information comprising fields such as transaction amount and these types of irrelevant fields or redundant fields are removed. The Examiner maintains this concept can be performed in the human mind or via pen or paper using the received information, where there is no suggestion in the claims that these steps could not be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite methods of organizing human activity because the focus of the claims is technical manipulation of data structures, specifically filtering raw behavior data into a refined dataset suitable for algorithmic processing. According to Applicant, the claims focus is technical manipulation of data structures, specifically filtering of raw behavior data into a refined dataset suitable for specific algorithmic processing, and therefore cannot be interpreted to be rules for human behavior, because they define a specific computerized operation method for transforming pre-generated behavior data into filtered data through data collating operations.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the claims recite concepts for managing points obtained for activities performed users. This concept is predicated on the other abstract idea recited which is the mental process identified by the Examiner that includes identifying an activity type, determining an algorithm for the activity type and filtering of data as discussed prior. The Examiner maintains that the operation of data collating is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and does not alter the fact that the claims recite an abstract idea and that the concept of filtering as claimed could be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper.
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong 2 that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer and to the technical field of data processing for environmental quantification. According to Applicant the claims require a specific technical improvement “ performing … data collating operations on the pre-generated behavior data to remove redundant or irrelevant data for calculation of carbon emissions with the respect to the identified activity type. Applicant contends this not merely gathering data, but instead filtering and transforming the data set before calculation to optimize processing and the Specification supports why filtering is a practical application and improvement. See Specification paragraph 38. According to Applicant, “removing redundant or irrelevant data ((such as monetary values in transaction logs but irrelevant to carbon calculation), the claims invention can reduce computational load and ensure that the particular algorithm processes only the necessary filtered data, which improves efficiency of the data processing system itself. Applicant contends the claims do not merely use a computer to calculate points, they configure the computer to clean and optimize a specific type of digital input (i.e. pre-generated behavior data) to generate a new, more efficient data structure (filtered pre-generated behavior).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that the improvements alleged by Applicant are directed to improving the abstract idea of performing the computation of the points for a user. In particular this improvement to the abstract idea is predicated on the removing redundant or irrelevant data which the examiner views can be performed as part of the abstract idea but also notes this improvement to data for improving the calculations is improving the abstract idea rather than improvement to technology. Indeed, Applicant’s usage of data collation is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as there is no specific technique for performing the data collation but rather this is merely applied for generating filtered data by removing redundant or irrelevant values. Applicant’s contentions regarding a reduction in computational load and generation of a new more efficient data structure are predicated on the abstract idea in particular the concept of filtering data to refine the set of data as part of the mental process and does not constitute an additional element to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to collecting data generally requires identifying an activity type (e.g. online ticketing) and then filtering data “with respect to the identified activity type” that imposes a meaningful limit. e.g., the system must adjust its filtering rules based on the specific service being used to strip out data that is “redundant or irrelevant” for that specific context. According to Applicant, this specific data manipulation constitutes a practical application of the concept of carbon tracking, moving it from an abstract calculation to a specific data management technique.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that the collection and analysis steps as contested by Applicant are part of the identified abstract idea as discussed prior rather than specific data manipulation techniques that amount to additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues under Step 2B that the claims recite an ordered combination provides an inventive concept through utilizing a specific architecture where: 1) activity types are identified from online service usage, 2) specific “data collating operations” are performed to remove irrelevant fields that improves processing efficiency and data storage/transmission, 3) a pre-associated particular algorithm is selected and 4) the result is integrated into a specific updated graphical user interface. According to Applicant, this is not well-understood routine activity because while conventional systems log a transaction the present claims receive “pre-generated behavior data, actively modifies it using the claimed “data collating operations” to remove specific data fields (e.g. price information) and then processes the filtered data. Applicant contends this specific sequence of data transformation steps amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the various purported technical elements to constitute steps of the recited abstract idea besides the GUI and data collation, which the Examiner viewed as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. The Examiner views the improvement for processing efficiency and data/storage transformation to reflect the improvement from the recited concept of filtering the behavior data as claimed which the Examiner viewed as part of the recited abstract idea as applied. The Examiner viewed this step of the recited abstract idea is merely applied using generic computing components and that the additional elements alone or in combination do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis (US 20100185521) -directed to sponsoring reduction of harmful emissions to the atmosphere.
Soestbergen et al. (US 20020143693) -directed to banking and exchanging emission reduction credits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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.
/Michael J. Monaghan/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights