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 Non-Final in response to the amendments and remarks submitted on 01/14/2026.
Claims 21, 22, 28, 29, 35 and 36 have been amended.
Claims 21-40 are examined herein.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 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 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;
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.
Previously presented 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
35 USC 112:
Based on Applicant’s amendments, the previously rejection is withdrawn.
35 USC 101, Applicant argues:
-“the claims address a technical challenge of aggregating user behavior data (e.g., carbon footprint data) and maintaining user engagement in data collection systems… Claim 21 has been amended to specifically recite this "social stealing"-type mechanism: "receiving data that indicates a user request to steal a particular quantity of uncollected points" and then providing an update to the user interface that indicates an updated total quantity of calculated and accumulated points that is associated with the user."” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing an improvement in technology, however the claims are directed to basic data aggregation. The claims are directed to data gathering without providing any improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). In contrast, the claims are merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment by requiring the use of a computer to perform the abstract process.
-“ A human mind cannot "provide for display" a graphical user interface. Nor can a human mind mentally maintain a real-time, synchronized database of "uncollected points" for multiple contacts based on, e.g., remote sensor data (e.g., walking, electronic payments) and instantaneously update a user interface in response to a request to steal uncollected points. These are inherently technological steps requiring a specific computer user interface and backend processing logic.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a first matter, the graphical user interface recited to display data is analyzed as part of the additional elements, wherein it was determined that the additional elements is a generic recitation merely used as a tool to perform the abstract process of displaying data. Furthermore, it is noted that the claim does not require for “a real-time, synchronized database of "uncollected points" for multiple contacts based on, e.g., remote sensor data”, the requirement of the claim is to receive and analyze data in order to display results of the analysis which is a process that a person can perform, perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the argument is found non-=persuasive.
-“ Applicant asserts that the inventive concept improves computer functionality and user interface functionality. The Specification describes a problem where "individual behaviors are often unrelated to each other (that is, fragmented)" making it "difficult for individual persons to calculate their associated carbon footprints." (See, e.g., para. [0018]). The inventive concept solves this, not through abstract math, but through a specific UI paradigm. By displaying "uncollected points" of contacts and enabling "stealing" of the uncollected points. The system incentivizes users to interact with the application and to aggregate data that would otherwise remain uncollected. This improves the technological process of data collection.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as written, are directed to generic data gathering. It appears the applicant is arguing a business solution to an individual person to calculate their associated carbon footprints rather than a technological improvement. Applicant argues that providing a “button” on an interface provides an improvement in technology, however there is no improved interface, or a new and inventive data display but rather a generic display of a button that allows users to claim uncollected or non-accumulated points from another user, something that does not require technology. A person can gather or acquire non-collected points of another user without requiring any type of technology, this is a process that can be perform manually perhaps with the aid of pen and paper and until limited by a computer. Furthermore, it is noted that the requirement of the claim is “receiving data that indicates a user request to steal a particular quantity of uncollected points”.
-“ This is not merely displaying data, as it is a specific interaction tool (the "stealing" mechanism) that allows users to manipulate data states (switching from "uncollected" by contact to "collected" by the user) using the user interface. Here, the specific method of navigating and acquiring contact data using "stealing" is a specific technological solution to data engagement. The Office Action argues on p. 6 that "display on a user interface" is merely a generic computer element. However, the claims do not merely say "display data." Instead, they recite a specific structure/format of data presentation (i.e., uncollected points per contact) and a specific function (stealing) that changes the state of the data and the display. This specific user interface logic renders the claims eligible as a practical application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as written, does not provide any specific structure or format. It is important to notice that the claim requirement is “receiving data that indicates a user request to steal a particular quantity of uncollected points”. Furthermore, the applicant have failed to articulate a reasoning as to what the applicant considers to be a specific structure/format of data presentation. Evidence of generic recitation is Figure 5B which discloses a generic user interface with a button indicating “press the key to “steal” points”, however it is imperative to emphasize that the requirement of the claim is merely “receiving data that indicates a user request to steal a particular quantity of uncollected points”.
-“This specific ordered combination is an inventive concept. It transforms a general idea of "tracking carbon" into a specific, interactive social application that drives user behavior and data aggregation in a non-conventional way. The "stealing" mechanism (e.g., illustrated in FIG. 5B) is a specific software feature that goes beyond the abstract idea of simply summing numbers.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The technology or additional elements recited in the claims (i.e. user interface, a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system; 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) are generic recitations to perform the abstract process, wherein the additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. It is important to emphasize that although the claims are examined in in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Talbert, US Patent Publication 2010/0315667 SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CARBON FOOTPRINT JOB BASED ACCOUNTING. A system may include a processor, a printing device, a communication interface operably connected to the processor, and a computer-readable storage medium in communication with the processor. The computer-readable storage medium may include one or more programming instructions for identifying a carbon credit account associated with at least a user, receiving a print job request from the user, receiving a carbon emission value for the print job request, determining whether to accept the print job request based on the carbon emission value and the carbon credit amount, and performing, via the printing device, the print job request in response to accepting the print job request. The carbon credit account may include a carbon credit amount.
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