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 .
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 (a process), Claims 28-34 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium (a manufacture) and Claims 35-40 recite a system (a machine) and therefore fall into a statutory category. The Examiner is interpreting the system and non-transitory computer readable medium are performing steps of the method for examination purposes.
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 comprising monetary values for calculation of carbon emissions with respect to the identified activity type to reduce a computational load of the particular algorithm;
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 recite concepts covering mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts reciting a manner of 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 recite concepts covering 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 reciting 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 June 30, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments on pages 11-13 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong 1 that the claims explicitly require “receiving pre-generated behavior data… using an application programming interface configured to analyze different data formats associated with a sender of the pre-generated behavior data” and “performing, to generate filtered pre-generated behavior data, data collating operations on the pre-generated behavior data to remove redundant or irrelevant data comprising monetary values for calculation of carbon emissions with respect to the identified activity type to reduce a computational load of the particular algorithm.” According to Applicant, a person cannot interface with an API to analyze disparate data formats from a sender, nor can a human mind process server-generated digital behavior logs to filter specific data fields (monetary values) to reduce the computational load of a computer algorithm and thus these computer-centric operations cannot be performed mentally or with pen or paper.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing an individual can collect information (i.e. 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,) and analyze the information (generate filtered pre-generated behavior data, by removing redundant or irrelevant data comprising monetary values for calculation of carbon emissions with respect to the identified activity type to reduce a computational load of the particular algorithm) as presently claimed. The Examiner views 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. The additional elements of the API and associated function (analyze different data formats associated with a sender of the pre-generated behavior data) were analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B. The Examiner views the concept of reducing a computational load of an algorithm is the intended benefit of removing the irrelevant or redundant information, which the Examiner views is a part of the recited abstract idea.
. Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong 2 the Specification describes the technical problem of processing raw, unoptimized digital behavior logs and provides a concrete solution. According to Applicant, the Specification explains that acquired behavior data may include redundant or irrelevant data to calculate individual carbon footprints. (See paragraph 38). Applicant contends that to solve this inefficiency data collating operations such as statistical collection, screening, and removal, can be performed on the acquired data. Applicant argues this is reflected through the limitation of “performing, to generate filtered pre-generated behavior data, data collating operations on the pre-generated behavior data to remove redundant or irrelevant data comprising monetary values for calculation of carbon emissions with respect to the identified activity type to reduce a computational load of the particular algorithm.” According to Applicant, this is not an insignificant extra-solution activity or a generic application of an abstract idea, but rather is a specific data optimization technique that reduces computational load and ensures the algorithm processes only the necessary filtered data. Applicant contends by transforming raw data structures into optimized, filtered datasets prior to algorithmic processing, the claims provide a specific improvement to the functioning of the data processing system itself.
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 which improves the calculation is improving the abstract idea rather than an improvement to technology. 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 transforming raw data structures into optimized, filtered data sets prior reduction are predicated on the abstract idea in particular the concept of filtering data to refine the set of data received as part of the mental process identified as part of the abstract and reflected in the claim. Therefore, the Examiner does not regard this as constituting an additional element to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues under Step 2B that the specific sequence of receiving data via an API configured to analyze different data formats, performing specific data collating operations to remove redundant or irrelevant data comprising monetary values to reduce computational load, applying a pre-associated algorithm with a specific mathematical formula, and generating an updated GUI actively modifies and optimizes digital data structures in a non-conventional way. According to Applicant this combination of elements moves beyond well-understood, routine, conventional data gathering providing a specific technical architecture for environmental data processing.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the asserted combination of elements to constitute steps of the recited abstract idea besides the API configured to analyze different data formats associated with a sender of the pre-generated behavior data, 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 to optimizing digital data structures as reflected in the claimed concept of filtering the behavior data which the Examiner viewed as part of the recited abstract idea as claimed as previously stated. The Examiner viewed this step of the 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, for the foregoing reasons, 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.
Smith (US 20140164070) - directed to a probabilistic carbon credits calculator.
Sandor et al. (US 20060184445) – directed to trading emission reductions.
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.
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