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 Claims
This action is in reply to the application 18/549,184 filed on 9/6/2023. Claims 1, 10, 12-13, and 15 were amended and claims 9 and 16-17 were cancelled in the reply filed 7/10/2025. Claim 1 was amended in the reply filed 8/29/2025. Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are pending. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 6 regarding claims 1-8 and 10-15: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claimed inventions provides a practical, technical improvement beyond a mere mental process or mathematical concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement to a computer system technology in the technical field of sustainable, green technology. However, under 35 USC § 101 the alleged improvement Applicant claims is not considered an improvement to a technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for guidance and examples of what is considered an improvement to a technical field and what is not considered an improvement to a technical field. As stated previously, the alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to collecting data, analyzing the collected data, and providing a computer output according to the analysis of the collected data. Such an invention implemented on a generic computer cannot be held eligible under 35 USC § 101 for the reasons described in the detailed analysis below.
Applicant further argues that the claimed abstract idea cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is merely directed to gathering data, making determinations from that data, and outputting a color-coded number based on the data analysis. This could easily be performed in the human mind using pen and paper. Although this abstract idea is implemented via additional elements such as computer displays and modules, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they are merely generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.”
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is analogous to patents which utilize color coding, and should therefore be deemed eligible under 35 USC § 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The color coding in the claimed invention is merely an element of the data output after data has been analyzed. Merely illustrating data in different colors indicative of different meanings does not make the process of data analysis and output patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims 1-8 and 10-15, when viewed as a whole, are novel. Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are not anticipated by any prior art. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine prior art to arrive at the claimed limitations. Notable references which come closest to teaching the claim limitations include: Website Carbon (NPL PDFs Attached – Wayback Machine December 4, 2021 - https://www.websitecarbon.com/how-does-it-work/ and Wayback Machine December 9, 2021 - https://www.websitecarbon.com/badge/ ) and Cruz Mota (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0028754). Other relevant art of note includes: Gross (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0003812); and Hovhannisyan (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0027401). As recognized by Examiner in the previous office action, the limitations of claim 9 (now moved to claim 1) are not found in the prior art, thereby making claim 1 novel over the prior art. Examiner therefore concludes that the claims as a whole are novel and not subject to rejection under 35 USC § 102 or 103.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a data module, an energy module, a carbon dioxide emission module, and a valuation or grading module in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method for performing the method of: automatically modifying display of a website on loading of the website in response to a determination of a carbon dioxide emission value or grading of the website, comprising the steps of:(a) determining, via a data module, an average number of bytes of data processed by the website;(b) determining, via an energy module, an estimated energy consumption based on the data processed; and(c) deriving, via a carbon dioxide emission module, an estimated amount of carbon dioxide emission from the estimated energy consumption; and(d) providing, via a valuation or grading module, a value or grading based on the estimated amount of carbon dioxide emission; wherein step (d) further comprises: determining an upper-bound carbon dioxide emission value and a lower-bound carbon dioxide emission value comprising the derived estimated amount of carbon dioxide emission; wherein the upper-bound carbon dioxide emission value and the lower-bound carbon dioxide emission value are selected from a set number of preset carbon dioxide emission values; determining an upper-bound scoring value correspond to the upper-bound carbon dioxide emission value, and a lower-bound scoring value correspond to the lower-bound carbon dioxide emission value; wherein the upper-bound scoring value and the lower-bound scoring value are selected from a set number of scoring values preset in accordance with the preset carbon dioxide emission values; and calculating a score based on the equation: Score = upper-bound scoring value + (lower-bound scoring value - upper-bound scoring value) / (upper-bound carbon dioxide emission value - lower-bound carbon dioxide emission value) x (upper bound carbon dioxide emission value - the estimated amount of carbon dioxide emission) (e) automatically modifying at least a portion of the displayed loaded website to displaying to a user one or more colors indicative to a user viewing the loaded website of one or more of: the calculated score and/or a change of score offering visual indications, offering visual indications on the carbon dioxide emission of the website; a level of power consumption by the loaded website; and an eco-friendliness of the loaded website. Therefore, claim 1 is directed tone of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations ... automatically modifying ... (displayed information) ... in response to a determination of a carbon dioxide emission value or grading of the website, comprising the steps of: (a) determining ... an average number of bytes of data processed by the website; (b) determining ... an estimated energy consumption based on the data processed; and (c) deriving ... an estimated amount of carbon dioxide emission from the estimated energy consumption; and (d) providing ... a value or grading based on the estimated amount of carbon dioxide emission; wherein step (d) further comprises: determining an upper-bound carbon dioxide emission value and a lower-bound carbon dioxide emission value comprising the derived estimated amount of carbon dioxide emission; wherein the upper-bound carbon dioxide emission value and the lower-bound carbon dioxide emission value are selected from a set number of preset carbon dioxide emission values; determining an upper-bound scoring value correspond to the upper-bound carbon dioxide emission value, and a lower-bound scoring value correspond to the lower-bound carbon dioxide emission value; wherein the upper-bound scoring value and the lower-bound scoring value are selected from a set number of scoring values preset in accordance with the preset carbon dioxide emission values; and calculating a score based on the equation: Score = upper-bound scoring value + (lower-bound scoring value - upper-bound scoring value) / (upper-bound carbon dioxide emission value - lower-bound carbon dioxide emission value) x (upper bound carbon dioxide emission value - the estimated amount of carbon dioxide emission) (e) automatically modifying ... (displayed information) ... to a user one or more colors indicative to a user viewing ... of one or more of: the calculated score and/or a change of score offering visual indications, offering visual indications on the carbon dioxide emission of the website; a level of power consumption by the loaded website; and an eco-friendliness of the loaded website, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Mental Processes”, “Mathematical Concepts” (e.g., mathematical calculations), and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Mental Processes”, “Mathematical Concepts” (e.g., mathematical calculations), and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claim 1, computer implemented, display of a website on loading of the website, a data module, an energy module, a carbon dioxide emission module, and a valuation or grading module, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system, however, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. When referring to the additional element website in the abstract (i.e., when the website is referred to but not being displayed; e.g., an average number of bytes of data processed by the website) the additional element website merely describes the “technological environment” and “field of use” upon which the abstract idea is being applied. “Thus, 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). Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are 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. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claim 1, computer implemented (described on Spec. pg. 2), display of a website on loading of the website (described on Spec. pg. 9), a data module (described on Spec. pg. 5), an energy module (described on Spec. pg. 5), a carbon dioxide emission module (described on Spec. pg. 5), and a valuation or grading module (described on Spec. pg. 5) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. When referring to the additional element website in the abstract (i.e., when the website is referred to but not being displayed; e.g., an average number of bytes of data processed by the website) the additional element website merely describes the “technological environment” and “field of use” upon which the abstract idea is being applied. “Thus, 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). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although claims 12, 13, and 14 recite the additional element a plugin, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Specifically, the additional element of claims 12, 13, and 14 a plugin (described on spec. pg. 9) is recited at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628