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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 17/863,046, filed on June 16, 2025. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated September 23, 2025, Applicant on December 23, 2025, amended claim 1 and canceled pending claims 5, 6 and 11, as well as non-elected claims 14-20. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12 and 13 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claims 1, 9 and 11 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding claim 1 and the cancelling of claim 11. New 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections have been applied to amended claims 1-4, 9, 10 and 12.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2-8, 10, 12 and 13 are hereby amended pursuant to Applicants amendments to claim 1 and the canceling of claims 5 and 6. Updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to amended claims 7, 8 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed December 23, 2025 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks regarding the pending rejections will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed December 23, 2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant submits that amended Independent Claim 1 is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, "one or more processors [that] are configured to: following a selection by the user of a setting for the device with the one or more changeable settings, receive an indication of the selected setting; determine whether the selected setting is in accordance with the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact; and following a determination that the selected setting is not in accordance with the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact, override the selected setting, wherein the override automatically causes the selected setting to be changed to a different setting that is in accordance with the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact" is other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, and is therefore patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See M.P.E.P. §§ 2106.05 and 2106.05(d). Reconsideration and favorable action are respectfully requested.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds the abovementioned determination limitations mimic human thought processes that can be performed mentally the human mind, such as with observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion, thus recite an abstract idea. Examiner also finds automatically overriding a user selected setting to be changed to a different setting that would achieve the diminished environmental impact is merely instructions implemented using generic computer components. Examiner notes Applicants specification discloses these automatable elements as a condition based on user permissions (see at least Specification par. 0073-0074, 0080 and 0084-0085). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.” In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Examiner maintains the claims recite addition elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do these elements provide meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-8, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because they are directed to newly amended subject matter and do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12 and 13 are directed towards a system, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite implementing a control strategy to achieve a diminished environmental impact.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, determine an environmental impact value of the predefined activity based on environmental impact caused by one or more aspects of the predefined activity; determine at least one change to the predefined activity that would achieve a diminished environmental impact; and implement a control strategy to assist the user in achieving the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact, responsive to acceptance of the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact, wherein, to implement the control strategy to assist the user in achieving the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact: following a selection by the user of a setting for the device with the one or more changeable settings, receive an indication of the selected setting; determine whether the selected setting is in accordance with the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact; and following a determination that the selected setting is not in accordance with the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact, override the selected setting, wherein the override automatically causes the selected setting to be changed to a different setting that is in accordance with the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior, as well as, observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of processors, devices and a device interface does not take the claim out of the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity groupings.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites collect ongoing user activity information relating to a predefined activity, using one or more devices having a predefined relationship to a user and suggest the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact to the user via a device interface, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites processors, devices and a device interface at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and wherein the predefined activity is associated with a device with one or more changeable settings, which merely confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including processors, devices and device interface amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 2, 4, and 7 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claim 12 recites deliver a reminder to the mobile personal device to change an aspect of the predefined activity in accordance with the at least one change which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Additionally, claims 3, and 8-10, 12 and 13 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 2-4, 7-10, 12 and 13 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vega et al., U.S. Publication 2021/0123771 [hereinafter Vega].
Referring to Claim 1, Vega teaches:
A system comprising:
one or more processors configured to (Vega, [0077]; [0172]):
collect ongoing user activity information relating to a predefined activity, using one or more devices having a predefined relationship to a user, wherein the predefined activity is associated with a device with one or more changeable settings (Vega, [0198]), “resulting intermediate fingerprint data is stored in database 1390 and is used as the primary input to the calculations needed to be performed to track, analyze and determine energy usage that is somehow not as expected, as well as operating appliances and adjusting set points, if so programmed by a customer…”; (Vega, [0125]), “receiving, using the communication device, at least one building mode from the at least one electronic device. Further, the at least one building mode may include indication of the at least one appliance corresponding to the at least one actuation data; (Vega, [0122]), “the at least one configuration may include one or more operational settings associated with the at least one appliance. Further, the at least one appliance may include an integration hub and a plurality of smart devices communicatively coupled to the integration hub”; (Vega, [0135]), “receiving at least one environmental information from at least one environmental information source. Further, the at least one environmental information may be associated with the at least one premises. Further, the at least one premises information may include a premises identifier associated with a premises of the at least one premises”; (Vega, [0094]; [0096]; [0110]; [0113]; [0186]),
determine an environmental impact value of the predefined activity based on environmental impact caused by one or more aspects of the predefined activity (Vega, [0281]), “gathering their historical energy usage data and other data that impacts energy usage. Data integration of smart meter and other advisor database information 1320 is the next step followed by a “time period” extraction of historical energy usage or consumption data 1330. FIGS. 26-27 illustrate the process steps unique to the advisor implementation that results once the initial (energy fingerprint) intermediary method steps have been completed”; (Vega, [0111]), “, the at least one lifestyle information may include a first lifestyle information associated with the first time period and a second lifestyle information associated with the second time period. Further, the at least one premises information may include at least one efficiency indicator associated with the at least one utility consuming appliance deployed in the at least one premises. Further, the at least one efficiency indicator may include a first efficiency indicator corresponding to a first time period and a second efficiency indicator corresponding to a second time period. Further, the analyzing may include determining a lifestyle variation based on comparing the first lifestyle information and the second lifestyle information. Further, the analyzing may include determining an efficiency variation based on comparing the first efficiency indicator and the second efficiency indicator”; (Vega, [0202]), “energy leakage calculation of the present disclosure directly links customer historical usage, lifestyle schedules, preferences, and settings through analysis, comparisons and simplified pragmatic methods to identify non-intrusive ways to save energy without requiring efforts by the customer to change any regular activities in which electricity is actively consumed in the household. This integration of a plurality of customer inputs, data and behavioral science brings visibility to previously unknown wasted electricity, quantify its associated cost and environmental impact”; (Vega, [0322]; [0079]; [0210]; [0233]-[0234]; [0285]);
determine at least one change to the predefined activity that would achieve a diminished environmental impact; suggest the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact to the user via a device interface (Vega, [0089]), “displaying and alerting an end-user of variances in energy use based on one or more of selected set points, excessive usage, variances from baseline, and unintentional usage, and (vii) recommending possible remediation(s) to eliminate or mitigate usage increases”; (Vega, [0296]), “Providing actionable insights for energy usage variations using a personalized context is a powerful tool that can help educate and guide consumers to make adjustments and decisions that can reduce consumption, costs and environmental impact”; (Vega, [0180]), “generate calculations, comparisons and recommendations 148 for a customer…energy analytics engine (optimization advisory engine) may generate energy consumption statistics and/or recommendations 148 to “save energy”…”; (Vega, [0190]), “The information from a GUI like that of FIG. 10 is needed for more detailed analysis of historical usage data and for analysis and presentations for potential recommendations to decrease energy consumption”; (Vega, [0085]; [0105]-[0106]); and
implement a control strategy to assist the user in achieving at least one the change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact, responsive to acceptance of the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact, responsive to acceptance of the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact (Vega, [0075]), “Energy advisor helps customers implement energy optimization recommendations, making it easier to make smarter more informed energy decisions that save money, improve efficiency, and advance sustainability with minimized intrusion in energy-consumer's lifestyle”; (Vega, [0112]), “analyzing may include determining an implementation of the at least one utility recommendation based on at least one of the utility consumption variation, the lifestyle variation and the efficiency variation”; (Vega, [0188]), “this energy analytics engine (optimization advisory engine) may be used to calculate an energy optimization score (e.g. Energy IQ) 240 and perform variance analysis for determining a cause, suggest optimization recommendations, and perform device controls and actuations”; (Vega, [0281]), wherein, to implement the control strategy to assist the user in achieving the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact, the one or more processors are configured to:
following a selection by the user of a setting for the device with the one or more changeable settings, receive an indication of the selected setting; determine whether the selected setting is in accordance with the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact (Vega, [0322]-[0330]), “Define Optimization is Run based on user settings and goals… impact and alignment are calculated for each optimization opportunity available in the database as weighted scores based on each given's total impact projections and the and alignment with the customer optimization criteria…The customer has the option to set the actuation of the optimization recommendations to manual or automatic, and to define automation settings, notifications and thresholds…Comparison of environmental impact of the current and recommended condition and recommended optimization projected costs based on baseline historical and predicted consumption”; (Vega, [0297]; [0305]), “Once the metrics from advisor are calculated or determined as described herein above, some of the metrics may be continuously monitored and displayed, that for example, but not limited to, include… The Capability to take action (change settings, switch of appliances, etc.)”; (Vega, [0443]; [0213]; [0367]); and
following a determination that the selected setting is not in accordance with the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact, override the selected setting, wherein the override automatically causes the selected setting to be changed to a different setting that is in accordance with the at least one change that would achieve the diminished environmental impact (Vega, [0344]-[0347]), “the customer may initiate modifications to existing schedules or set points to clear the variance 6062. If not, a query is made regarding changes in occupancy 6064 and if not a query is made regarding changes in appliances and features 6066. For items 6062, 6064, and 6064, if change have been made then the baseline personalized model monitoring step 6030 is changed or modified to reflect these changes. And, if the baseline model is modified then the optimization recommendations and actuations are modified 6070, which in turn results in modifications to the baseline model 6080 and then the energy optimization score (e.g. Energy IQ) 6090. [0345] 10. A user is notified when updated recommendations are available and has the ability to accept, adjust or reject the suggested automation. [0346] 11. Accepted automations are incorporated into the application schedules and building modes. [0347] 12. A user receives periodic notifications, including reports, on the automations performed and the equivalent reduction in energy consumption, cost, and pollution emissions”; (Vega, [0292]).
Referring to Claim 2, Vega teaches the system of claim 1. Vega further teaches:
wherein the devices include a home appliance (Vega, [0190]), “present disclosure also combines household information from a user (dwelling type and size, number of rooms, appliances, number of occupants, etc.), lifestyle behaviors 116 and uses a basic disaggregation algorithm that provides a general split of historical energy consumption into buckets (e.g., A/C, heating, pool, clothes dryers, etc.)…”; (Vega, [0171]), ““premises”, “residence”, “structure”, “building” and “dwelling”, they may be used interchangeably”; (Vega, [0209]; [0228]; [0230]).
Referring to Claim 3, Vega teaches the system of claim 2. Vega further teaches:
wherein the predefined activity includes usage of the home appliance (Vega, [0190]), “present disclosure also combines household information from a user (dwelling type and size, number of rooms, appliances, number of occupants, etc.), lifestyle behaviors 116 and uses a basic disaggregation algorithm that provides a general split of historical energy consumption into buckets (e.g., A/C, heating, pool, clothes dryers, etc.)…”; (Vega, [0171]), ““premises”, “residence”, “structure”, “building” and “dwelling”, they may be used interchangeably”; (Vega, [0209]; [0228]; [0230]).
Referring to Claim 4, Vega teaches the system of claim 1. Vega further teaches:
wherein the devices include a mobile personal device (Vega, [0093]), “the at least one lifestyle information source may include a user device (e.g. a desktop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, a mobile phone, a wearable computer, etc.) configured to receive the at least one at least one lifestyle information manually entered by a user (e.g. by way of touch inputs, voice commands, gestures etc.) and transmit the at least one lifestyle information over a network (e.g. the Internet). In some embodiments, the at least one lifestyle information source may be an appliance capable of capturing and transmitting the at least one lifestyle information. For instance, the at least the at least one lifestyle information source may be an IoT appliance (e.g. IoT appliance, IoT sensor, IoT camera, microphone etc.) configured to capture and transmit the at least one lifestyle information”; (Vega, [0110]), “the at least one utility consumption information source may include a user device (e.g. a desktop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, a mobile phone, a wearable computer, etc.) configured to receive the at least one utility consumption information manually entered by a user (e.g. by way of touch inputs, voice commands, gestures etc.) and transmit the at least one utility consumption information over a network (e.g. the Internet)”.
Referring to Claim 9, Vega teaches the system of claim 1. Vega further teaches:
wherein the impact includes at least a fixed impact associated with one or more devices involved in the predefined activity (Vega, [0290]), “A remediation may include for example, but not be limited to… premises or appliance replacement, premises or appliance upgrade, etc.”; (Vega, [0291]).
Referring to Claim 10, Vega teaches the system of claim 1. Vega further teaches:
wherein the change is determined based at least in part on user-defined parameters exempting specified changes and the change accommodates to the parameters so as not to utilize an exempted change (Vega, [0345]), “A user is notified when updated recommendations are available and has the ability to accept, adjust or reject the suggested automation”; (Vega, [0294.
Referring to Claim 12, Vega teaches the system of claim 1. Vega further teaches:
wherein the control strategy includes delivery of one or more reminders to a user based on engagement in the predefined activity, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based on information collected from at least the mobile personal device, that the user is engaging in the predefined activity; and deliver a reminder to the mobile personal device to change an aspect of the predefined activity in accordance with the at least one change, responsive to determining that the user is engaging in the predefined activity (Vega, [0076]), “identify the energy consumption and associated environmental footprint optimization for each customer based on their behavior and usage patterns, lifestyle, preferences and energy aspirations… provides people and businesses access to actionable insight about their own energy habits… activate or implement optimization recommendations, alerts and reports that highlight unusual consumption, deviation from customer set targets, and visibility when options better aligned with consumer preferences and objectives become available”; (Vega, [0084]), “receiving end-user goals, lifestyle behaviors, and premises information and occupation data, (ii) displaying synchronized time slice data in one or more pre-selected formats, (iii) displaying alternative representations of energy usage data associated with a source of energy for said premises, (iv) displaying recommendations for available energy reduction choices, (v) displaying energy consumption for said energy devices associated with said premises, (vi) displaying and alerting an end-user of variances in energy use based on one or more of selected set points, excessive usage, variances from baseline, and unintentional usage, and (vii) recommending possible remediation(s) to eliminate or mitigate usage increases”; (Vega, [0358]), “the continuous monitoring of the energy consumption comparing it to the baseline and personalized model to detect variances, alert and query customer when predefined threshold is exceeded”; (Vega, [0290]), “advisory recommendations are triggered when the energy advisor system and method associates deviations in energy consumption patterns to situations requiring remediation. Once a predetermined variation threshold in the baseline is exceeded, based on consumer preferences and personalized models, flag and notify customer and prompting for input (including changes in: behavior, lifestyle, household features, appliances, etc.)”; (Vega, [0434]; [0442]; [0093]; [0110]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vega et al., U.S. Publication 2021/0123771 [hereinafter Vega], and further in view of Bellowe, U.S. Publication No. 2017/0351978 [hereinafter Bellowe].
Referring to Claim 7, Vega teaches the system of claim 1. Vega teaches smart devices (e.g., connected to the internet, wireless network, etc.) characterized to identify the energy consumption and associated environmental footprint optimization for each customer based on their behavior and usage patterns, lifestyle, preferences and energy aspirations (see par. 0076), however Vega does not explicitly teach:
wherein the devices include a vehicle.
However Bellowe teaches:
wherein the devices include a vehicle (Bellowe, [0096]-[0097]), “member profile can be generated by collecting information about the user from a plurality of devices/sensors associated with the user. The devices and sensors can include… devices coupled to an automobile which can provide information such as diagnostic information… the devices and/or sensors can collect, via sensor signals, information such as characteristics associated with the user such as devices usage information or location. These characteristics can include the status of the device/sensor signals, the geographical user associated with the device, automobile starter such as the average speed of an automobile during a time period, the speed of the automobile, automobile battery use, throttle status, distance driven, the vehicle location, and/or driving habits”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the smart devices in Vega to include the vehicle limitation as taught by Bellowe. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method for the generation of an environmental impact component as part of the “Energy Fingerprint” with a matching representation of the environment impact with a calculation of possible actions needed to offset the consumer's consumption impact in Vega (see par. 0233) toto efficiently include the results of generating information which can assist in calculating a carbon footprint associated with the user and/or the user's environment (see Bellowe par. 0096).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination of Vega in view of Bellowe teaches the system of claim 7. Vega teaches smart devices (e.g., connected to the internet, wireless network, etc.) characterized to identify the energy consumption and associated environmental footprint optimization for each customer based on their behavior and usage patterns, lifestyle, preferences and energy aspirations (see par. 0076), however Vega does not explicitly teach:
wherein the predefined activity includes travel using the vehicle.
However Bellowe teaches:
wherein the predefined activity includes travel using the vehicle (Bellowe, [0096]-[0097]), “member profile can be generated by collecting information about the user from a plurality of devices/sensors associated with the user. The devices and sensors can include… devices coupled to an automobile which can provide information such as diagnostic information… the devices and/or sensors can collect, via sensor signals, information such as characteristics associated with the user such as devices usage information or location. These characteristics can include the status of the device/sensor signals, the geographical user associated with the device, automobile starter such as the average speed of an automobile during a time period, the speed of the automobile, automobile battery use, throttle status, distance driven, the vehicle location, and/or driving habits”; (Bellowe, [0058]), “may also be possible to gather more fine grained information about the carbon impact of an automobile trip between point A and point B from the car itself, taking into consideration driving speed, starts and stops, and elevation changes to determine and record a person's location over time, which can include information regarding a path taken, speed, and an amount of time in transit”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the smart devices in Vega to include the activity limitation as taught by Bellowe. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method for the generation of an environmental impact component as part of the “Energy Fingerprint” with a matching representation of the environment impact with a calculation of possible actions needed to offset the consumer's consumption impact in Vega (see par. 0233) to efficiently include the results of generating information which can assist in calculating a carbon footprint associated with the user and/or the user's environment (see Bellowe par. 0096).
Referring to Claim 13, Vega teaches the system of claim 12. Vega teaches determining/providing recommendations for available energy reduction choices (see par. 0084), but Vega does not explicitly recite:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the user is engaging in the predefined activity in a manner not in accordance with the at least one change, based on information collected from the at least one mobile personal device, and wherein the delivery of the reminder is further responsive to the determination that the user is engaging in the predefined activity in the manner not in accordance with the at least one change.
However Bellowe teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the user is engaging in the predefined activity in a manner not in accordance with the at least one change, based on information collected from the at least one mobile personal device, and wherein the delivery of the reminder is further responsive to the determination that the user is engaging in the predefined activity in the manner not in accordance with the at least one change (Bellowe, [0118]), “the users activity can be monitored and suggested techniques to lower the carbon footprint can be provided… the user activity of shopping can be added to the predicted schedule and/or dynamically updated based on the user's behavior… the user can be provided with warning messages when the user activity has high carbon impact and no recommendations can be provided to lower it. In at least one embodiment the user can be provided with information about the user's predicted itinerary and/or the items performed. The information can be provided in separate tabs and/or split screen format. In at least one embodiment the information can include the carbon impact of the item and/or the predicted carbon impact of the item”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the recommendations in Vega to include the reminder limitations as taught by Bellowe. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method for the generation of an environmental impact component as part of the “Energy Fingerprint” with a matching representation of the environment impact with a calculation of possible actions needed to offset the consumer's consumption impact in Vega (see par. 0233) to efficiently include the results of monitoring user activity to incentivize lowered carbon footprints (see Bellowe par. 0133).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meehan et al. (US 20120166616 A1) – A system for resource performance management, comprising a network-connected data collection service adapted to receive data from a plurality of resources, a network-connected data aggregation and reporting service adapted to aggregate resource-related data on at least temporal, organizational, geographic, and resource-specific dimensions, a network-connected initiative modeling service adapted to facilitate modeling by a user of a plurality of resource-related initiatives, and a network-connected initiative monitoring service adapted to receive data from one of the data collection service and the data aggregation and reporting service, and further adapted to measure performance of a plurality of resource-based initiatives, wherein a plurality of resource-based initiatives are assembled within the initiative modeling service into a plurality of initiative portfolios, and the plurality of initiative portfolios are modeled under a variety of forecast scenarios to determine an optimal initiative portfolio from among the plurality of portfolios, is disclosed.
Ballew et al. (US 12271937 B1) – Methods and systems described herein are directed to evaluating an individual's ecological impact to promote reductions for that impact. An ecological impact evaluator can automatically retrieve behavioral data of a user that the evaluator can assess for guiding the user with respect to one or more of product purchasing, water usage, recycling and composting procedures, and driving practices. In view of data collected, the evaluator can provide various recognitions for behavior that incentivize the user toward maintaining or improving current behaviors.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624