APPLIED PREDICTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 20202020003986 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/448,501 07/31/2014 Mark D'Agostino APT009-US-UTIL 7862 22428 7590 12/02/2020 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER SADANANDA, ABHIJIT B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ipdocketing@foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK D'AGOSTINO, ALEX SVISTUNOV, DAVID NEDZEL, and SCOTT INGS Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 Technology Center 3600 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MasterCard International Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to systems and methods for generating a location specific index of economic activity. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: displaying, by a first computer, a user interface on a website displayed on a plurality of second computers, the user interface configured to receive one or more inputs from a plurality of users operating the plurality of second computers; receiving, by the first computer, a plurality of electronic transmissions via the website from the plurality of second computers including a plurality of electronic messages where each message comprises a first criterion corresponding to a subject location, a second criterion corresponding to an inputted geographic parameter, and a request for an index value of activity for the subject location for a selected timeframe; for the electronic message from each second computer: querying, by the first computer, a database to identify the subject location based on the first criterion in the respective electronic message; querying, by the first computer, the database to receive a plurality of activity data points for each of a plurality of locations within a network in relation to the subject location; querying, by the first computer, the database to determine a geographic area defined by the inputted geographic parameter of the subject location stored in the database; determining, by the first computer, a subset of locations within the plurality of locations of the network that are within the geographic area of the subject location; for each second computer, determining, by the first computer, a distance between each location within the subset of locations and the subject location; Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 3 querying, by the first computer, the database, to receive an aggregate of the plurality of activity data points for the subset of locations within the plurality of locations corresponding to a first period of time and a second period of time defined by the selected time frame; calculating, by the first computer, a normalized unit-less indicator representing activity corresponding to each subject location by calculating an index value for each location within the subset of locations based on a change in the plurality of activity data points between the first period of time and the second period of time and dividing the index value by a baseline value, wherein the index value is weighted based on an overlapping portion of a trade area associated with each location within the subset of locations with the geographic area of the subject location, the overlapping portion being determined based on each location’s respective distance from the subject location, wherein the baseline value corresponds to an average attribute for each location within the subset of locations, the baseline value masking a magnitude of the plurality of activity data points, whereby the index value is weighted differently for each subject location based on each respective first criterion, second criterion, request, and its relative distance and overlapping portion of the trade area with its respective subset of locations; and in response to the electronic message, displaying, by the first computer, the website on each second computer showing the normalized unit-less indicator for its respective subject location where each normalized unit-less indicator does not indicate a magnitude of any underlying activity data for the subset of locations or a value of the baseline value. Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 4 REJECTION Claims 1–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because 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. Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter is in error. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues claims 1–25 as a group. Appeal Br. 5. Given our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the § 101 rejection of claims 1–25 based on representative claim 1. Principles of Law An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 5 risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 6 an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of § 101.2 The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates this revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).3 Under MPEP § 2106, we first look to whether the claim recites: 2 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”). “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1. 3 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated. Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 7 (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).4 MPEP § 2106.04(a)) and § 2106.04(d). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application,5 do we then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.6 MPEP § 2106.05(d). 4 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)II. 5 This corresponds to Alice part one where it is determined whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. If a claim is “not directed to an abstract idea under part one of the Alice framework, we do not need to proceed to step two.” (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).). 6 This corresponds to Alice part two where it is determined whether the claim contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 8 Step 1 Claim 1, as a method claim, falls within the process category of § 101. See Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54 (citing MPEP §§ 2106.03, 2106.06). Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception? The Examiner determined that claim 1 recites an abstract fundamental economic practice, which is a certain method of organizing human activity. Final Act. 9. The Examiner determined that the claim recites limitations that describe a process of accessing and evaluating economic activity data to generate and report an index value of economic activity, “which describes fundamental economic practices, marketing activities, and/or managing business relations.” Id. The Examiner identified the following steps as part of the recited abstract idea: receiving . . . a plurality of . . . messages where each message comprises a first criterion corresponding to a subject location, a second criterion corresponding to an inputted geographic parameter, and a request for an index value of activity for the subject location for a selected timeframe; [. . .] identify the subject location based on the first criterion; [. . .] receive a plurality of activity data points for each of a plurality of locations within a network in relation to the subject location; [. . .] determine a geographic area defined by the inputted geographic parameter of the subject location; determining a subset of locations within the plurality of locations of the network that are within the geographic area of the subject location; determining . . . a distance between each location within the subset of locations and the subject location; Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 9 [. . .] receive an aggregate of the plurality of activity data points for the subset of locations within the plurality of locations corresponding to a first period of time and a second period of time defined by the selected timeframe; calculating . . . a normalized unit-less indicator representing activity corresponding to each subject location by calculating an index value for each location within the subset of locations based on a change in the plurality of activity data points between the first period of time and the second period of time and dividing the index by a baseline value, wherein the index value is weighted based on an overlapping portion of a trade area associated with each location within the subset of locations with the geographic area of the subject location, the overlapping portion being determined based on each location's respective distance from the subject location, wherein the baseline value corresponds to an average attribute for each location within the subset of locations, the baseline value masking a magnitude of the plurality of activity data points, whereby the index value is weighted differently for each subject location based on each respective first criterion, second criterion, request, and its relative distance and overlapping portion of the trade area with its respective subset of locations; and [. . .] displaying . . . the normalized unit-less indicator for its respective subject location where each normalized unit-less indicator does not indicate a magnitude of any underlying activity data for the subset of locations or a value of the baseline value. Appeal Br. 3–9. Consistent with Appellant’s description of the claims (see, e.g., Spec. ¶ 13), the limitations we summarize above describe accessing economic data and calculating and displaying a normalized unit-less indicator representing the activity, which is fairly characterized as a fundamental economic Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 10 activity, and which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of abstract ideas. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because claim 1 is not “directed towards any of the enumerated abstract ideas,” and is “directed towards calculating masked and anonymized indexes and customizing the display of the anonymized indexes for different end users.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The question in Step 2A, Prong 1, is whether the claim “recites” an abstract idea. Appellant’s arguments are directed to whether the claim “is directed to” an abstract idea. Because we agree with the Examiner that the claim recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine if the idea is integrated into a practical application, in which case the claim as a whole would not be “directed to” merely an abstract idea. Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application? We next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. We use the term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. See Revised Guidance at 55 n.24. In claim 1, the Examiner determined that the additional elements include the first “displaying” limitation, the first “receiving” limitation in part; the four “querying” limitations, the first two Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 11 “determining” limitations, and the final “displaying” limitation, as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 10. To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 2019 Revised Guidance. The Examiner determined that none of the additional limitations is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements “amount to nothing more [than] mere instructions to automate the abstract idea in a generic network computing environment, and they fail to impose meaningful limits that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.” Final Act. 11–12. Appellant argues that claim 1 recites “an improvement upon conventional software solutions.” Appeal Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant argues that claim 1 integrates “the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting meaningful limitations that describe how a central server can receive data from disparate electronic sources and present anonymized data customized for each end user (if necessary, in real-time).” Id. Appellant argues that “[c]onventional approaches do not create real-time customizable results because they receive data on infrequent basis.” Id. at 7. Appellant further argues that “[c]onventional software solutions provide Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 12 results that create a negative user experience and are highly dependent on the end user’s subjective understating.” Id. Appellant argues that claim 1 “do[es] not just recite querying and analyzing data but limit[s] those features based on a series of positively recited rules.” Id. at 8. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Considering the additional limitations identified by the Examiner (Final Act. 10), Appellant has not persuaded us that “displaying, by a first computer, a user interface on a website” and “receiving” data (“messages”) from the website involve more than using a generic computer to collect or gather data. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the first “displaying” and “receiving” steps amount to mere data gathering. See Final Act. 11. The four “querying” steps, as recited in claim 1, are also data gathering steps because they merely provide input for the recited data processing steps. Thus, the first “displaying” and “receiving” steps and the four “querying” steps constitute insignificant extra- solution activity. Tying a claimed method for organizing human activity to specific data cannot turn an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter because “mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (collecting and analyzing data amounted to mere data gathering); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff'd sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity). We further determine that the additional limitation directed to “displaying” the website on each second computer constitutes insignificant Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 13 post-solution activity. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more . . . is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). Moreover, the “determine” step (determine a geographic area) and the two “determining” steps (determining a subset of locations, and determining a distance between each location) do not add meaningful limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Indeed, those steps recite abstract mental processes, as no details are recited as to how such determinations are made. Here, there is no claimed improvement to technology or a technical field. Real-time customizable results are not technical improvements. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the fact that the web site returns the pre-designed ad [selected based on analysis of the user’s information] more quickly than a newspaper could send the user a location-specific advertisement insert does not confer patent eligibility.”) At best, claim 1 provides an improved analytical way, i.e., an improved abstract idea, for providing more cost- effective, relevant economic index data. Yet, as the court expressly recognized in Enfish, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The alleged advantages that the Appellant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities, but instead relate to an alleged improvement in a method of selecting and Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 14 displaying customized economic index data based on the analysis of performance data -- a process in which computer components are used as tools in their ordinary capacities. Claim 1 as a whole, then, merely uses instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Here, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, claim 1 recites an abstract ideas as identified in Step 2A(i), supra, and none of the additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, we conclude that the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Step 2B — “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More” If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above, we proceed to the “inventive concept” step. For Step 2B we must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Tex,, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 15 patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Those “additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79. The Examiner determined that the additional elements in claim 1 “require nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions of receiving and transmitting data over a network, retrieving and storing data in memory, and performing repetitive calculations.” Ans. 10. Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner’s allegation that the recited server is a generic computer does not satisfy his burden of showing that the claims are well known, routine, and conventional.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues that “the claimed solution improves conventional software solutions because it includes steps that are not conventionally performed.” Reply Br. 7. Appellant argues, for instance, that “the claims recite how a central server creates a novel index that is customized for each end user.” Id. at 8. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Appellant states in a conclusory manner that the additional elements recited in the claims are not conventionally performed, but does not direct our attention to anything in the Specification that indicates the computer components perform anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving data, looking up data in a database, processing data, and displaying data in a web interface. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 16 Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (server that receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images insufficient to add an inventive concept); Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept). The Specification states that “well-known or conventional details are not described in order to provide a concise discussion of embodiments of the present invention.” Spec. ¶ 30. The Specification describes that “[t]he embodiments can be implemented on known devices such as a personal computer.” Id. at ¶ 79. Paragraphs 60–62 of the Specification describe storing and retrieving data from a “database,” with no further description. Spec. ¶¶ 60–62. The Specification further describes that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as “processing” or “computing” or “calculating” or “determining" or “displaying” or “identifying” or “detecting” or the like, can refer to the action and processes of a data processing system, or similar electronic device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the system’s registers and memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the system's memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices. Spec. ¶ 77. Because the Specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, we conclude the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of Appellant’s Appeal 2020-003986 Application 14/448,501 17 Specification, as cited above. See Berkheimer Memo7 § III.A.1; Spec. ¶¶ 30, 60–62, 77, 79. We conclude claim 1 does not have an inventive concept because the claim, in essence, merely recites various computer-based elements along with no more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea using the computer-based elements. Because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more, we sustain the Examiner's § 101 rejection of independent claim 1 and grouped claims 2–25, not argued separately with particularity. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–25 101 Eligibility 1–25 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018) (explaining that a specification that describes additional elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation