DETAILED ACTION
Response received on January 28, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10, and 20 have been amended, and Claim 5 is cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 20 are pending.
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 Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 02/29/2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 1/28/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 20 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/591,651 was filed on 02/29/2024.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of January 28, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, also applicable to Claim 20, recites “the second interface is configured to not allow the second interface to be refreshed using the server”. The applicant has not conveyed possession of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art. The specification describes the second interface as being provided via a website, and accessed using a web browser, which inherently allows a user to refresh the interface using standard browser functionality. The specification fails to disclose any specific way of such refreshing is disabled, nor does it describe the second interface as operating differently from a conventional webpage in this regard. The paragraph fails to discloses any specifics of how these elements are being used to achieve the claimed invention. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the following claimed elements are considered new matter:
“the second interface is configured to not allow the second
interface to be refreshed using the server.”
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 1-4, 6-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1‐4 and 6-15 are directed to a system (machine) and Claim 20 is directed to a method (process). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claim 20. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A computing system for reducing server load associated with unavailable services, comprising: a processor; and memory encoding instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the computing system to: store, in a database, records indicating numbers of times a first customer and a second customer refreshed webpages in response to prior access unavailabilities; detect access unavailability for the first customer and the second customer to an online version of a service at computing devices; determine a computing issue causing the access unavailability, the computing issue including overload of a server; determine, based on the computing issue, a first computing pathway capable of resolving the access unavailability, and a second computing pathway that is different from the first computing pathway and capable of resolving the access unavailability; predict, based on the computing issue, a first carbon emissions score correlated to a first predicted magnitude of carbon emissions that would be emitted to resolve the computing issue and provide access to the online version of the service at the computing devices by executing the first computing pathway; predict a second carbon emissions score correlated to a second predicted magnitude of carbon emissions that would be emitted to provide access to another version of the service by executing the second computing pathway; perform actions based on the first carbon emissions score, the second carbon emissions score, and the records, wherein the actions include to:(ii generate a first interface on a display of a first of the computing devices, the first interface including a first button selectable to execute the first computing pathway and a second button selectable to execute the second computing pathway, and wherein the actions include positioning the first button and the second button relative to each other on the first interface based on the first carbon emissions score and the second carbon emissions score; and(ii) generate a second interface on a display of a second of the computing devices, the second interface including the second button selectable to execute the second computing pathway; in response to a first selection of the first button via the first interface, execute the first computing pathway, including to refresh the first interface using the server; and in response to a second selection of the second button via each of the first interface and the second interface, execute the second computing pathway; wherein, to reduce the overload of the server: the first interface is configured to allow the first interface to be refreshed using the server by selection of the first button; and the second interface is configured to not allow the second interface to be refreshed using the server.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of managing carbon emissions associated with unavailable services and predicting based on an issue, a first carbon emissions score correlated to a predicted magnitude of carbon emissions that would be emitted to resolve the issue. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the data processor and related computer components, this claim encompasses actions such as identifying service outages, evaluating technical causes, predicting carbon emissions of different resolution options, which are steps that could be conventionally be performed by human operators or environmental compliance agents as part of a routine sustainability management process or even IT management process. Additionally, this activity could traditionally be performed by monitoring server performance, identifying downtime causes, and calculating associated carbon outputs using manual data collection and estimation methods. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers legal and commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “webpages”, “online version of a service”, “computing device”, “server”, and “interface” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1 and 20 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of “computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “webpages” “online version of a service”, “interface” , “server”, and “computing device”. Claim 20 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1 with the addition of “signal”, “a website”, “a server”, “mobile application”, “artificial intelligence”, and “interface”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claimed invention recites additional elements (computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “webpages” “online version of a service”, “interface” , “server”, and “computing device”) that appears to be used in their ordinary capacity as generic computing components for receiving user input, processing data, storing information, and facilitating communication between interfaces, without any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or a transformation of any particular technology. The additional elements of “artificial intelligence” is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to artificial intelligence. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements (computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “webpages” “online version of a service”, “interface” , “server”, and “computing device”) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. The computing system performs generic function of storing and processing data, the interface constitutes operation used to facilitate communication between devices and simply displays data. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1 and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2-4 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include detect access unavailability includes indicating that a denial of service has occurred, an attempted access of the online version of the service, and indicating a type of the computing issue. In addition, Claim 2-4 recite a new additional element “signal” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claim 2-4 are patent ineligible.
Claim 6 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include displaying at least two options for accessing the service and further displaying indicia indicating relative carbon emissions magnitudes associated with executing different ones of the at least two options, one of the at least two options being to access the another version of the service. In addition, Claim 6 recite a new additional element of “interface” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claim 6 is patent ineligible.
Claim 7-10, and 14 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the options are ranked based on the relative carbon emissions magnitudes, wherein the options are ranked based on a type of the service, predict a number of instances of access unavailability to the online version of the service, and wherein the number of instances is predicted based on when, in a predefined banking cycle, the access unavailability to the online version of the service. The dependent claims 7-10, and 14 do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 11 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the first carbon emissions score and the second carbon emissions score are predicted. In addition, Claim 11 recite a new additional element of “artificial intelligence” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claim 11 is patent ineligible.
Claim 12-13 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the first carbon emissions score is predicted based on prior activity in response to one or more prior instances of service unavailability and predict a future attempted access to the online version of the service and action includes to generate an alert and provide the alert. The dependent claims 12-13 do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 15 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include the first carbon emissions score is predicted based on a predicted number of times. In addition, Claim 15 recite a new additional element of “webpage” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claim 15 is patent ineligible.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 9 of Applicant’s response, applicant traverses that the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. This general allegation is not persuasive. The applicant is referred to the 101 rejection above as to why the claims are still not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner notes that that claim is directed to managing access unavailability by evaluating multiple alternative computing pathways and predicting corresponding carbon emissions scores, followed by generating and modifying a user interface based on those scores. The additional elements of “computing system”, “processor”, “memory”, “webpages” “online version of a service”, “computing issue”, “computing pathway”, “server”, “interface” and “computing device” are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. When considered as a whole, the claim amounts to applying the judicial exception using conventional computer operations and therefore does not recite significantly more. Additionally, the applicant relies on the claim limitation of “the second interface is configured to not allow the second interface to be refreshed using the server”, to make the claims eligible under 101. This limitation recites an alleged functionality, preventing refresh of a second interface, that is neither supported by the specification nor tied to any specific technological implementation, and instead amount to impermissible functional claiming of a desired result rather than a concrete technical solution.
Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible under Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claimed invention recites additional elements that appears to be used in their ordinary capacity as generic computing components for receiving user input, processing data, storing information, and facilitating communication between interfaces, without any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or a transformation of any particular technology. The additional elements of “artificial intelligence” is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to artificial intelligence. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 as amended integrates any abstract idea into a practical application through specific technological improvements, namely, reducing load on a server causing a denial of service (DoS) issue. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that claim 1 merely recites identifying a server overload condition and selecting between alternative response pathways with associated metrics (including carbo emissions) using generic computing components, which constitutes an abstract idea of organizing and presenting information and does not amount to a specific technological improvement to computer functionality or server operation. Applicant further argues that by generating differently functioning interfaces for different customers, the number of webpage refreshes can be reduced, which can reduce the load on the server, and help to alleviate the DoS issue, thereby reflecting an improvement in computer systems and integration of a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that because the claim uses open ended “comprising” language and does not expressly require the second interface to exclude buttons or differ structurally from the first interface, the claim permits both interfaces to include the same elements and merely recites what the second interface cannot do, rather than defining any meaningful technical distinction. Additionally, the claim language fails to distinguish the interfaces in a way that reflects a concrete improvement to computer or server functionality rather than an abstract presentation of options (pathways). Applicant further argues or at least these reasons, claims 1 and 20, and claims depending therefrom, recite eligible subject matter. Examiner notes that reconsideration of the claims in view of the amendments was made and the argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 20 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
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
extension fee 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 date of this final
action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/DENNIS W RUHL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626