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 .
Status of the Application
This is a Final Action in response to the amendments and remarks submitted on 06/12/2026.
Claims 21, 28, 35 and 36 have been amended.
Claims 21-40 are pending and examined herein.
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 claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that claims 21-40 are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 21-40 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite managing points associated with carbon-emitting activities performed by a person. Claims 21, 28 and 35 recites the abstract idea of calculating how many carbon footprints can be saved (that is, a carbon-saving quantity) from an individual engaging in environment-friendly behaviors (see paragraphs 004). This idea is described by the following claim steps:
providing for display, (i) and identifying multiple contacts of a user, and, (ii) for each contact of the multiple contacts of the user, a quantity of uncollected points associated with the contact, wherein the quantity of uncollected points associated with the contact represent an amount of carbon that is calculated for one or more carbon-emitting activities that were avoided by use of an application associated with multiple user activities and, for each user activity of the multiple user activities, by the contact in performing the user activity, and for which the contact has not requested accumulation with a total quantity for the contact;
receiving data that indicates a user request to view, for a particular contact, a respective quantity of uncollected points that are associated with each user activity by the contact;
providing, a representation of the respective quantity of uncollected points that are associated with each user activity by the contact;
receiving data that indicates a user request to steal a particular quantity of uncollected points that are associated with a particular user activity by the contact;
deducting the particular quantity of uncollected points from an account associated with the contact;
adding the particular quantity of uncollected points that are associated with the particular user activity by the contact to a total quantity of accumulated points that is associated with the user; and
providing, for display, an updated total quantity of calculated and accumulated points that is associated with the user.
This idea falls within mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards observation and evaluation of data such that as required when from an individual engaging in environment-friendly behaviors. The noted abstract idea is also directed to managing interactions between people such as that required during communications when from an individual engaging in environment-friendly behaviors conforms to the requirements of more than one party.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Mental Processes and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
The additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claims 28 and 35 recites similar limitations as claim 21 and are therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
display on a user interface;
a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system; and
one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations.
However, using a computer environment such as one or more computers and one or more computer memory devices and other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Determining the amount of points a person can obtain for engaging in carbon saving activities can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring receiving the data via a user interface or a computer to perform the method steps.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product 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.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 21, 28 and 35 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 22-27 and 29-34, and 36-40 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claims 22, 29, 26-27, 33-34, 36 and 40 further limits the abstract idea by narrowing the judicial exception by introducing the limitation in response to receiving data that indicates a user request to steal a particular quantity of uncollected points that are associated with a particular user activity by the contact: disassociating the particular quantity of uncollected points that are associated with the particular user activity, with the contact; wherein the particular user activity comprises an on-line ticket purchasing activity that avoids carbon-emitting activities of driving and printing paper tickets or receipts, and the quantity of uncollected points includes both (i) uncollected points that represent an amount of carbon that is saved by avoiding driving, and (ii) uncollected points that represent an amount of carbon that is saved by avoiding printing paper tickets or receipts and wherein the particular user activity comprises an on-line bill payment activity that avoids a carbon-emitting activity of printing paper bills, and the quantity of uncollected points includes uncollected points that represent an amount of carbon that is saved by avoiding printing bills. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 23, 30, and 37 further limits the abstract idea by narrowing and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation providing, for display, an additional user interface that identifies (i) the total quantity of calculated and accumulated points that represents an amount of carbon that is calculated for one or more carbon-emitting activities that were avoided through use of user activities by the user, and for which the user has requested accumulation, (ii) each of the multiple user activities associated with the application, and, (iii) for each user activity of the multiple user activities, a quantity of calculated and uncollected points for the user activity that represents an amount of carbon that is calculated for one or more carbon-emitting activities that were avoided through use of the application by the user in performing the user activity, and for which the user has not requested accumulation with the total quantity; receiving a user request for the quantity of calculated and uncollected points for a particular user activity to be accumulated with the total quantity of calculated and accumulated points; in response to receiving the user request for the quantity of calculated and uncollected points to be accumulated with the total quantity of calculated and accumulated points, adding the quantity of calculated and uncollected points to the total quantity of calculated and accumulated points, to generate an updated total quantity of calculated and accumulated points that is associated with the user; and providing, for display, an updated user interface that indicates the updated total quantity of calculated and accumulated points that is associated with the user. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 24-25, 31-32, and 38-39 further limits the abstract idea by narrowing and linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation purchasing a tree based on the total quantity of calculated and accumulated points; wherein the tree comprises a virtual tree. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea The virtual tree merely appear to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. 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 high level of generality 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.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered.
35 USC 101, Applicant argues:
Page 10, “ Dynamically generating a synchronized graphical user interface that displays real-time, uncollected carbon-offset data from remote sensor activities across multiple distinct user accounts, and processing electronic data requests to manipulate those remote data states without authorization, are inherently technological operations.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued features do not meaningfully limit the claim because they are recited in the claim language. The claim does not require dynamically generating a synchronized graphical user interface, uncollected carbon-offset data from remote sensor activities across multiple distinct user accounts, or manipulating remote data states without authorization. Rather, the claim merely recites providing, for display, a user interface that identifies (i) multiple contacts of a user, and (ii) for each contact of the multiple contacts of the user, a quantity of uncollected points associated with the contact, wherein the uncollected pints represent an amount of carbon that is calculated for one or more carbon-emitting activities. That is, the claim merely requires to provide for display data, how the data that is displayed is collected is not positively recited and therefore does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim does not require that the display is synchronized or updated in real time, or that data state is technically modified. Similarly, characterizing the request to as one “to steal points” describes the purpose or content of the request, not a particular technological mechanism for bypassing authorization or altering remotely stored data. Therefore, the claimed limitations remain directed to presenting information and processing a request associated with transferring or taking points, which are activities that may be performed as part of a commercial, gaming or interpersonal arrangement. The computer and display components merely serve as a tool for performing those activities and do not reflect an improvement on graphical user interfaces, sensor technology, data synchronization, computer security or other operation of the computer itself. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Page 11, “Applicant respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific user interface mechanism that solves a technical data aggregation problem. The Specification explicitly identifies the challenge of fragmented data collection, noting that "individual behaviors are often unrelated to each other (that is, fragmented)" making it "difficult for individual persons to calculate their associated carbon footprints" (Specification, para. [0018]). The claims solve this through a specific, interactive user interface paradigm that incentivizes data aggregation, where "different users can acquire non-accumulated points from each other" (Specification, para. [0098]). By displaying uncollected points of contacts and enabling the unauthorized acquisition of those points, the claims recite a specific interaction tool that manipulates data states across distinct user profiles.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite a technological solution to the argued problem of fragmented data collection. Rather, they merely recite providing for display, data associated with a contact, receiving a request to steal points and deducting the uncollected points. The claims do not disclose any specific mechanism for collecting, synchronizing, aggregating or processing data form disparate sources, nor they improve the operation of a computer, network, database or graphical user interface. Applicant’s characterization of the claims as reciting a specific interactive user interface is disproportionate with the claim language. The claims do not recite a new an improve GUI architecture or an improved human-computer interaction technique, but instead use of a generic interface to display information and receive a user request in accordance with the rules of a point program system. Likewise, the claims do not recite manipulating remote data states or implementing a technical authorization mechanism, but merely receive a request relating to uncollected points. Any improvement lies in the business rules governing the acquisition of transfer of points as incentive to encourage participation in a carbon-offset program, rather than in an improvement to computer technology. Therefore, the additional elements merely user generic computer components as tool to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exemption into a practical application under step 2A Prong 2, as argued.
Page 12, “The Office Action also asserts that the ordered combination of elements "adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually" (Office Action, p. 7, para. 2). Applicant respectfully disagrees and asserts that the ordered combination of elements - specifically, displaying a remote contact's uncollected points, receiving data indicating a user request to acquire those points unauthorized by the contact, deducting the points from the contact's account, and updating the user interface - transforms the general concept of carbon tracking into a specific, interactive software/user-interface application. The Office Action's analysis fails to address the unconventional nature of the claimed "stealing" mechanism in view of the application and user interface. There is no evidence on the record establishing that this specific data-state manipulation and user interface interaction was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field at the time of the invention. The Office Action also asserts that the claims merely invoke "generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity." However, there is nothing generic or conventional about a system that calculates carbon savings from disparate activities, displays these savings as "uncollected points" belonging to remote contacts on a local GUI, and provides a specific interactive mechanism to acquire those points without the contact's authorization. This specific, non-conventional ordered combination transforms the general idea of tracking carbon into a specific, interactive social application that drives user behavior and data aggregation in an unconventional way, amounting to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea itself.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Applicant asserts that the ordered combination transform the abstract idea into a specific interactive software application, the claims do not recite any technological improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. The claims merely recite displaying data associated with a contact, receiving a request to steal points, deducting points and updating the user interface. These limitations implement the rules of a points program using generic computer functions of displaying information, receiving user input, updating data and presenting results of the update. Applicant’s characterization of the claims is disproportionate with the claim language. For example, the claims do not recite calculating carbon savings from disparate activities, displaying real-time or synchronized data, dynamically generating a graphical user interface, manipulating remote data states providing a technical authorization mechanism or providing a specific interactive mechanism to acquire those points without the contact's authorization. Rather, the claims simply recite providing data associated with a contact for display and receiving a request to steal points. Describing the request as “unauthorized”, although not disclose on the claim language, or the interaction as “specific data state manipulation” merely characterizes the business rule governing the transfer of points and does not recite implementation that improves computer functionality. The alleged improvement is therefore directed to encouraging user participation through an incentive structure rather than improving how computer collect, process, display, transmit or secure data. Consequently, the ordered combination merely automates the administration of a points program using generic computer technology and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Page 13 “It Appears that the Office Action may be attempting to take Official Notice on page 11 by asserting that the claimed "stealing" mechanism and UI updates are "a generic recitation merely used as a tool to perform the abstract process of displaying data" and that the process can be performed "manually perhaps with the aid of pen and paper." Applicant respectfully traverses this assertion. The Office Action provides no evidentiary support or prior art to establish that this specific, interactive "social stealing" UI mechanism was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art at the time of the invention. If Official Notice is being taken, Applicant requests that the Office provide documentary evidence to support this assertion.” Applicant’s arguments regarding Official Notice are not persuasive because the Office Action, mailed on 03/12/2026, does not take Official Notice that a particular “social stealing” user interface mechanism or interaction paradigm was well-understood, routine and conventional. Rather, the Official Action evaluated the claim as written. While Applicant repeatedly characterized the claims as reciting a specific interactive “social stealing” user interface mechanism and an acquisition of points of “unauthorized by the contact”, the claims do not recite either limitation. The claims do not recite a particular user interface architecture, graphical interaction technique, authorization protocol, security mechanism, or any other technological process by which another user’s authorization is by passed. Instead, the claims merely recite receiving a request from the user to “steal” another user’s uncollected points. Accordingly, the Office Action is not relying on Official Notice but on the absence of the alleged technological features from the claim language.
Page 13 “The Office Action also appears to employ an unusual strategy by completely ignoring the "unauthorized by the contact" limitation during the Step 2A analysis, reducing the entire claim scope to merely "managing points," which renders the rejection incomplete. Furthermore, applying the "pen and paper" doctrine to a networked, multi-user system that requires unauthorized data acquisition from remote accounts is a highly unusual and illogical stretch of the mental doctrine, as it ignores the physical impossibility of manually altering data states on a remote user’s device without technological intervention.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the claim does not recite the argued limitation. Rather, the claims merely recite “receiving data that indicates a user request to steal a particular quantity of uncollected points that are associated with a particular user activity by the contact”. The eligibility analysis of the claim, is based on the claim language as written, not on any characterization of the invention or any embodiment described in the specification.
Applicant’s repeated references to a “specific interactive social stealing UI mechanism” are not disclosed in the claims, as written. The claims do not recite any particular graphical user interface implementation, synchronization technique or technical mechanism for processing the request. Rather, the claims merely recite receiving a request from the user and updating information based on the request. These generic computer functions do not improve the functioning of the computer or any other technology, but instead implement the business rules of a point system using conventional computer functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis (2010/0185521) System And Method For Sponsoring Reduction Of Harmful Emissions To The Atmosphere. The present invention relates to a system and method for collecting a sponsored amount from a consumer of fossil fuels to be used for funding various activities which contribute to the reduction of harmful emissions, for example carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere.
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 MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights