Ex Parte JobinDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 22, 201912523427 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/523,427 07/16/2009 7590 BERNARD JOBIN 1108 HUNT SEAT DR AMBLER, PA 19002 05/22/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bernard Jobin 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 9710 EXAMINER VAN BRAMER, JOHN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3621 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BERNARD JOBIN Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 221-225, 228-235, 238-242, 246-249, 253-255, 259,260, and 264--270. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention collectively develops, manages, and markets products and improvements by considering the contributions of various participants, such as experts, communities, customers, or any other relevant organization or individual. See Abstract; Spec. 14--15. In exchange for the 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bernard Jobin. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 participants' involvement, potential compensation rights and entitlement options are offered as incentives to participants. Spec. 14. Claim 221 is illustrative: 221. A system corresponding to an online collaborative content management system and operating with a data structure that enables developing and evaluating and marketing products based on derivative rights, comprising: a server, and user devices, which user devices each corresponds to a user of the system, the server containing a data structure and data, which data structure describes associations of data records and of the data contained in the server, which data includes a defined desired outcome and content items and at least one entitlement option, which entitlement options each defines a conditional entitlement, said described associations indicating at least: a) a plurality of sets of data records, which data records in each of the sets are grouped into a plurality of comprised subsets of data records, which subsets each comprises at least one data record, which data records from the subsets each identifies a content item by containing a content item or by being otherwise associated to a content item, and consequently each of the subsets identifying at least one content item; and b) one entitled grouping, which entitled groupings each represents a grouping of at least one set from the sets, each entitled grouping being associated with at least one of the entitlement options; the system being configured to at least: communicate, from the server to each user device from a plurality of the user devices, the defined desired outcome and at least one description of a plurality of given sets from the sets from the described data structure associations and of the subsets of data records comprised in the given sets, which subsets of data records identify content items, at least one of the given sets from each of the descriptions corresponding to at least one of the sets comprised in at least one of the entitled groupings; receive, in the server, responses from multiple user devices from the plurality of the user devices, and identify in the server as contributions a plurality of the received responses, and store the contributions in the server, 2 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 a) which received responses result from each user device from the multiple user devices receiving at least one of the descriptions of a plurality of given sets and using the described given sets to at least: (i) offer to its user an arrangement of content items by using and conveying, in the arrangement, the data structure associations of the described given sets and of their subsets of identified content items, and (ii) associate at least one discriminating user rating with at least one of the subsets comprised in each of a plurality of the described given sets, each of the subsets associated with a rating representing a rated subset, and each user rating being indicative of a comparative user evaluation of how well a given subset of identified content items relates to the desired outcome when compared to other subsets within the same described given set, and each user rating being indicative of at least a user selection or a user tagging of one of the rated subsets of identified content items, and (iii) generate a response and communicate the generated response to the server which generated response describes at least one of the rated subsets with its associated rating based on the received descriptions of given sets, b) which responses are identified in the server as contributions by each at least describing one or a plurality of rated subsets that corresponds, according to the described data structure associations, to one or a plurality of the subsets comprised in one of the entitled groupings, and which user devices, from which the responses identified as contributions were received, each represents a contributor device of the system; create in the server one or more contribution options, which contribution options each defines an association between a given one of the contributions and one of the entitlement options associated with one of the entitled groupings that comprises, according to the described data structure associations, one or a plurality of subsets which corresponds to the one or a plurality of the rated subsets described in the given one of the contributions; communicate from the server, to each of at least one of the contributor devices from which at least one of the contributions was received, at least one of the contribution options that associates the received 3 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 at least one of the contributions with one of the entitlement options; generate in the server at least one insight grouping, which insight groupings each represents a grouping of one or of a plurality of the subsets comprised in a given one of the entitled groupings based on (i) the number of described rated subsets that were received in the contributions and that correspond, according to the described data structure associations, to the one or plurality of the subsets comprised in the given one of the entitled grouping and (ii) the ratings associated with each of the described rated subsets that were received, and classify in the server, as valuable product information, each of one or of a plurality of the content items identified by at least one of the subsets from at least one of the insight groupings; detect in the server at least one contribution options that each associates one of the entitlement options with one of the contributions that describes one or a plurality of rated subsets which corresponds, according to the described data structure associations, to one or to a plurality of the subsets from one of the insight grouping; receive in the server, from a given one of the user devices, a request for granting a given one of the entitlement options that is associated with one of the contributions defined in one of the contribution option communicated to a given one of the contributor devices, which request is indicative that the given one of the user devices was previously communicated, from the server or from the given one of the contributor devices, the one of the contribution options; grant in the server the given one of the entitlement options by validating that the given one of the entitlement options was previously detected in the server, and communicate said grant to the given one of the user devices, said grant and said communicate being executed: (i) without restriction, or (ii) after one or more granting conditions are detected, in the server, to have been met. 4 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 THE REJECTION2 The Examiner rejected claims 221-225, 228-235, 238-242, 246-249, 253-255, 259, 260, and 264--270 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2-15. 3 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely obtaining and rating user input and rewarding users. Final Act. 2-13. The Examiner adds that the claims do not include elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea, but merely recite, among other things, generic computer components. Id. 13-15. Appellant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea. App. Br. 102-80; Reply Br. 4--25. According to Appellant, not only did the Examiner fail to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility by, among other things, oversimplifying and overgeneralizing the claimed invention, the claimed invention is also said to yield a technological improvement to a technical field, namely online collaborative content management for product development. See id. Appellant adds that the claimed invention adds significantly more to the purported abstract idea by reciting an inventive concept that implements a specific way to enable online collaborative content management for product development. App. Br. 31- 2 Because the Examiner withdrew rejections under§ 112 (see Ans. 3-7), those rejections are not before us. 3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June 21, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed November 18, 2017 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed April 3, 2018 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed April 21, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 5 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 34; Reply Br. 9-11. Among other things, Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to address the particular limitations of various dependent claims, let alone the associated arguments regarding their eligibility. App. Br. 203-18; Reply Br. 26-27. ISSUE Under§ 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 221-225, 228-235, 238-242, 246-249, 253-255, 259, 260, and 264--270 as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue turns on whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether recited elements----considered individually and as an ordered combination-transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea. 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 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. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. 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 Supreme Court's two-step 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 6 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 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 (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 252, 267---68 (1854))); 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 Supreme 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 176; 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."). That said, the Supreme 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. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now 7 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 commonplace that 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 tum to the second step 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 and citation 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. ( 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 USPTO published revised guidance on the application of§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: ( 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); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: 8 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or ( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. ANALYSIS Claim 221: Alice/Mayo Step One Independent claim 221 recites a system corresponding to an online collaborative content management system and operating with a data structure that enables developing and evaluating and marketing products based on derivative rights, comprising: a server, and user devices, which user devices each corresponds to a user of the system, the server containing a data structure and data, which data structure describes associations of data records and of the data contained in the server, which data includes a defined desired outcome and content items and at least one entitlement option, which entitlement options each defines a conditional entitlement, said described associations indicating at least: a) a plurality of sets of data records, which data records in each of the sets are grouped into a plurality of comprised subsets of data records, which subsets each comprises at least one data record, which data records from the subsets each identifies a content item by containing a content item 9 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 or by being otherwise associated to a content item, and consequently each of the subsets identifying at least one content item; and b) one entitled grouping, which entitled groupings each represents a grouping of at least one set from the sets, each entitled grouping being associated with at least one of the entitlement options; the system being configured to at least: communicate, from the server to each user device from a plurality of the user devices, the defined desired outcome and at least one description of a plurality of given sets from the sets from the described data structure associations and of the subsets of data records comprised in the given sets, which subsets of data records identify content items, at least one of the given sets from each of the descriptions corresponding to at least one of the sets comprised in at least one of the entitled groupings; receive, in the server, responses from multiple user devices from the plurality of the user devices, and identify in the server as contributions a plurality of the received responses, and store the contributions in the server, a) which received responses result from each user device from the multiple user devices receiving at least one of the descriptions of a plurality of given sets and using the described given sets to at least: (i) offer to its user an arrangement of content items by using and conveying, in the arrangement, the data structure associations of the described given sets and of their subsets of identified content items, and (ii) associate at least one discriminating user rating with at least one of the subsets comprised in each of a plurality of the described given sets, each of the subsets associated with a rating representing a rated subset, and 10 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 each user rating being indicative of a comparative user evaluation of how well a given subset of identified content items relates to the desired outcome when compared to other subsets within the same described given set, and each user rating being indicative of at least a user selection or a user tagging of one of the rated subsets of identified content items, and (iii) generate a response and communicate the generated response to the server which generated response describes at least one of the rated subsets with its associated rating based on the received descriptions of given sets, b) which responses are identified in the server as contributions by each at least describing one or a plurality of rated subsets that corresponds, according to the described data structure associations, to one or a plurality of the subsets comprised in one of the entitled groupings, and which user devices, from which the responses identified as contributions were received, each represents a contributor device of the system; create in the server one or more contribution options, which contribution options each defines an association between a given one of the contributions and one of the entitlement options associated with one of the entitled groupings that comprises, according to the described data structure associations, one or a plurality of subsets which corresponds to the one or a plurality of the rated subsets described in the given one of the contributions; communicate from the server, to each of at least one of the contributor devices from which at least one of the contributions was received, at least one of the contribution options that associates the received at least one of the contributions with one of the entitlement options; 11 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 generate in the server at least one insight grouping, which insight groupings each represents a grouping of one or of a plurality of the subsets comprised in a given one of the entitled groupings based on (i) the number of described rated subsets that were received in the contributions and that correspond, according to the described data structure associations, to the one or plurality of the subsets comprised in the given one of the entitled grouping and (ii) the ratings associated with each of the described rated subsets that were received, and classify in the server, as valuable product information, each of one or of a plurality of the content items identified by at least one of the subsets from at least one of the insight groupings; detect in the server at least one contribution options that each associates one of the entitlement options with one of the contributions that describes one or a plurality of rated subsets which corresponds, according to the described data structure associations, to one or to a plurality of the subsets from one of the insight grouping; receive in the server, from a given one of the user devices, a request for granting a given one of the entitlement options that is associated with one of the contributions defined in one of the contribution option communicated to a given one of the contributor devices, which request is indicative that the given one of the user devices was previously communicated, from the server or from the given one of the contributor devices, the one of the contribution options; grant in the server the given one of the entitlement options by validating that the given one of the entitlement options was previously detected in the server, and communicate said grant to the given one of the 12 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 user devices, said grant and said communicate being executed: (i) without restriction, or (ii) after one or more granting conditions are detected, in the server, to have been met. 4 As the disclosure explains, Appellant's invention collectively develops, manages, and markets products and improvements by considering the contributions of various participants, such as experts, communities, customers, or any other relevant organization or individual. See Abstract; Spec. 14--15. In exchange for the participants' involvement, potential compensation rights and entitlement options are offered as incentives to participants. Spec. 14. This cooperation and interaction between product features, development, collaborative contributions, and potential participant ownership and entitlements is said to create an appealing incentive that ensures valuable results. Id. In one aspect, a promoter requests that participants contribute in developing desired product outcomes by using their knowledge and insight, as well as proposing, evaluating, or rating alternative options. Id. 14--15. These contributions are compiled, sorted, and filtered using various valuation criteria, such as popularity or distinctiveness, and added to an intellectual capital database. 5 Id. 15. Contributors are compensated when their contributions rank as relatively insightful by exercising or selling their granted compensation rights. Id. 4 Unless otherwise indicated, we italicize or quote text associated with various recited limitations for emphasis and clarity. 5 According to the Specification's page 32, intellectual capital items in the database consist of "any intangible thoughts or concepts of the mind that are represented as tangible expressions, manifestations or realizations of products." 13 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 Turning to claim 221, we first note that the claim recites a system and, therefore, falls within the machine category of§ 101. But despite falling within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. To this end, we must determine whether the claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test. See id. In the rejection, the Examiner determines that claim 221 is directed to an abstract idea, namely obtaining and rating user input and rewarding users. Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 7-20. To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we ( 1) identify the claim's specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts 6; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity 7; or ( c) mental processes. 8 6 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 7 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 8 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 14 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 Here, apart from the recited (1) online collaborative content management system; (2) data structure; (3) server; and (4) user devices, all of claim 221 's recited limitations, which collectively are directed to soliciting and evaluating product development contributions received from participants, and compensating participants according to that evaluation fit squarely within at least one of the above categories of the agency's guidelines. First, the recited descriptions of associations of data records and of data including a defined desired outcome, content items, and at least one entitlement option where each option defines a conditional entitlement, where the associations indicate at least (1) sets of data records grouped into subsets, where each data record identifies a content item as claimed such that each subset identifies at least one such item, and (2) one entitled grouping that is associated with at least one entitlement option involve at least personal interactions, including following rules or instructions, at least to the extent that a person could obtain, store, associate, and group this data either entirely mentally by merely reading pertinent records or other associated information, or alternatively receive that information via face-to- face or written communication with another person with such knowledge, such as a colleague. Cf CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that limitation reciting obtaining information about transactions that have used an Internet address identified with a credit card transaction can be performed by a human who simply reads records of Internet credit card transactions from a pre-existing database); In re Salwan, 681 F. App'x 938, 939--41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, 15 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 receiving medical records information and transmitting reports where the claimed invention's objective was to enable electronic communication of tasks that were otherwise done manually using paper, phone, and facsimile machine); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that a nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in a meeting or conversation as illustrating the invention's focus, namely providing information to a person without interfering with the person's primary activity); LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App'x 991, 993-94, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, (1) receiving selection criteria from lending institutions and credit data from a computer user, and (2) forwarding the credit data to selected lending institutions as directed to an abstract idea). Therefore, the recited data associations and indications fall squarely within the mental processes and methods of organizing human activity categories of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary (1) mental processes including observation and evaluation, and (2) methods of organizing human activity, including personal interactions and following rules or instructions). Second, "the system being configured to at least [l] communicate ... to each user ... the defined desired outcome and at least one description of a plurality of given sets from the sets from the described data ... associations and of the subsets of data records comprised in the given sets, which subsets of data records identify content items, at least one of the given sets from each of the descriptions corresponding to at least one of the sets comprised in at least one of the entitled groupings; and [2] receive . .. responses from multiple user[s] . .. and identify . .. as contributions a 16 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 plurality of the received responses, and store the contributions ... , a) which received responses result from each user ... receiving at least one of the descriptions of a plurality of given sets and using the described given sets to at least[] (i) offer to [the] user an arrangement of content items by using and conveying, in the arrangement, the data ... associations of the described given sets and of their subsets of identified content items, and (ii) associate at least one discriminating user rating with at least one of the subsets comprised in each of a plurality of the described given sets, each of the subsets associated with a rating representing a rated subset, and each user rating being indicative of a comparative user evaluation of how well a given subset of identified content items relates to the desired outcome when compared to other subsets within the same described given set, and each user rating being indicative of at least a user selection or a user tagging of one of the rated subsets of identified content items, and (iii) generate a response and communicate the generated response ... which generated response describes at least one of the rated subsets with its associated rating based on the received descriptions of given sets, b) which responses are identified ... as contributions by each at least describing one or a plurality of rated subsets that corresponds, according to the described data ... associations, to one or a plurality of the subsets comprised in one of the entitled groupings, and which user devices, from which the responses identified as contributions were received, each represents a contributor ... of the system involve at least personal or commercial interactions, including following rules or instructions, at least to the extent that a person could send, receive, and evaluate the recited information via face-to-face or written communication with others by, for example, (1) conducting a survey; (2) 17 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 sending, receiving, and evaluating questionnaires; or (3) crowdsourcing activities. Cf OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 785 F.3d 1359, 1361-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding ineligible claims reciting testing product prices by (1) sending messages over a network, (2) gathering customer-response statistics during testing, (3) selecting an appropriate sales price, and (4) sending a second set of messages including offers at the selected price over the network); LendingTree, 656 F. App'x 991, 993-94, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, (1) receiving selection criteria from lending institutions and credit data from a computer user, and (2) forwarding the credit data to selected lending institutions as directed to an abstract idea); Salwan, 681 F. App'x at 939--41 (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, receiving medical records information and transmitting reports where the claimed invention's objective was to enable electronic communication of tasks that were otherwise done manually using paper, phone, and facsimile machine); Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344 (noting that a nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in a meeting or conversation as illustrating the invention's focus, namely providing information to a person without interfering with the person's primary activity); Gust, Inc. v. Alphacap Ventures, LLC, 905 F.3d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (discussing Kickstarter, Inc. v. Fan Funded, LLC, No. 11-cv-6909, 2015 WL 3947178 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), ajf'd 654 F. App'x 481 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting the district court's finding that "crowdfunding" is a fundamental economic concept and a way of organizing human activity). Therefore, the recited communication and response reception functions fall squarely within the methods of organizing human activity category of the agency's guidelines 18 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing human activity, including personal and commercial interactions and following rules or instructions). We add that the above-noted recited function that identifies the received responses as contributions can also be performed entirely mentally by merely thinking about these identifications or writing them down-both involving mere observation and logical reasoning. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP address). Therefore, the recited contribution identification function also falls squarely within the mental processes category of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea for that additional reason. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observation and evaluation). We reach the same conclusion regarding the recited function that create[s] . .. one or more contribution options, which contribution options each defines an association between a given one of the contributions and one of the entitlement options associated with one of the entitled groupings that comprises, according to the described data ... associations, one or a plurality of subsets which corresponds to the one or a plurality of the rated subsets described in the given one of the contributions for, here again, contribution options can also be created entirely mentally by merely thinking 19 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 about these options or writing them down-both involving mere observation and logical reasoning. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372. In addition, communicat[ing] . .. to each of at least one of the contributor[s] from which at least one of the contributions was received, at least one of the contribution options that associates the received at least one of the contributions with one of the entitlement options involves at least personal or commercial interactions, including following rules or instructions, at least to the extent that a person could send the recited information via face-to-face or written communication with others. Cf OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 785 F.3d 1359, 1361---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding ineligible claims reciting testing product prices by (1) sending messages over a network, (2) gathering customer-response statistics during testing, (3) selecting an appropriate sales price, and ( 4) sending a second set of messages including offers at the selected price over the network); LendingTree, 656 F. App'x 991, 993-94, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, (1) receiving selection criteria from lending institutions and credit data from a computer user, and (2) forwarding the credit data to selected lending institutions as directed to an abstract idea); Salwan, 681 F. App'x at 939--41 (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, receiving medical records information and transmitting reports where the claimed invention's objective was to enable electronic communication of tasks that were otherwise done manually using paper, phone, and facsimile machine); Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344 (noting that a nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in a meeting or conversation as illustrating the invention's focus, namely providing information to a person without 20 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 interfering with the person's primary activity). Therefore, the recited contribution option communication function falls squarely within the methods of organizing human activity category of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing human activity, including personal and commercial interactions and following rules or instructions). Also, [1] generat[ing] . .. at least one insight grouping, which insight groupings each represents a grouping of one or of a plurality of the subsets comprised in a given one of the entitled groupings based on (i) the number of described rated subsets that were received in the contributions and that correspond, according to the described data structure associations, to the one or plurality of the subsets comprised in the given one of the entitled grouping and (ii) the ratings associated with each of the described rated subsets that were received; [2] classifying ... as valuable product information, each of one or of a plurality of the content items identified by at least one of the subsets from at least one of the insight groupings; and [3] detect[ing] ... at least one contribution option[] that each associates one of the entitlement options with one of the contributions that describes one or a plurality of rated subsets which corresponds, according to the described data ... associations, to one or to a plurality of the subsets from one of the insight grouping can be performed entirely mentally by merely thinking about these groupings, classifications, and contribution options or writing them down-both involving mere observation and logical reasoning. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372. Therefore, the recited insight grouping generation, valuable product classification, and contribution option detection functions fall squarely within the mental processes category of the agency's 21 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observation and evaluation). In addition, [1] receiv[ing] . .. from a given one of the user[s], a request for granting a given one of the entitlement options that is associated with one of the contributions defined in one of the contribution option[s] communicated to a given one of the contributor[s], which request is indicative that the given one of the user[s] was previously communicated . .. the one of the contribution options; and [2] grant[ing] . .. the given one of the entitlement options by validating that the given one of the entitlement options was previously detected . .. , and communicat[ing] said grant to the given one of the user[s], said grant and said communicat[ing] being executed: (i) without restriction, or (ii) after one or more granting conditions are detected ... to have been met involve at least personal or commercial interactions, including following rules or instructions and fundamental economic practices at least to the extent that a person could (1) receive the recited entitlement-based information via face-to-face or written communication with others; (2) decide whether to grant an entitlement if certain conditions are satisfied; and (3) if so, communicate the grant to the intended recipient via similar means. Cf Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 680 F. App'x 977, 979-84 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding ineligible recited terminal that retrieved and accessing protected multimedia content by, among other things, validating payment as directed to abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to data based on payment-a fundamental economic practice); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1374, 1378-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding ineligible 22 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 claim reciting that the conditional steps of ( 1) receiving payment for a remote order, and (2) transmitting data to a remote seller that payment was received were performed only if a code received at a point-of-sale system related to a remote order as directed to an abstract idea). Therefore, the recited functions pertaining to granting an entitlement option fall squarely within the methods of organizing human activity category of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing human activity, including personal and commercial interactions, following rules or instructions, and agreements consistent with contractual or legal obligations). Although the claim recites an abstract idea based on these methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, we nevertheless must still determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. To this end, we (1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See id. Here, the the recited (1) online collaborative content management system; (2) data structure; (3) server; and (4) user devices are the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 221 as a whole. First, we are not persuaded that the claimed invention 23 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 improves the computer or its components' functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those devices function, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal Circuit in Enfzsh LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), despite Appellant's arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 102, 106, 145--47; Reply Br. 20, 29-32). The claimed self-referential table in Enfish was a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent Appellant contends that the claimed invention uses such a data structure to improve a computer's functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way that device functions, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. To the extent Appellant contends that the claimed invention is rooted in technology because it is ostensibly directed to a technical solution (see App. Br. 102-80, 201---02; Reply Br. 4--25), we disagree. Even assuming, without deciding, that claimed invention can solicit and evaluate product development contributions received from participants, and compensate participants according to that evaluation faster than doing so manually, any speed increase comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components-not the recited process itself. See Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.")); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 711 F. App'x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) ("Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files 24 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 and to reduce error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer do not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter."). Like the claims in Fair Warning, the focus of claim 221 is not on an improvement in computer processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Nor is this a case involving eligible subject matter as in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) despite Appellant's arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 104, 110-11, 118, 137-39; Reply Br. 12-13, 34--35). There, instead of a computer network operating in its normal, expected manner by sending a website visitor to a third-party website apparently connected with a clicked advertisement, the claimed invention in DDR generated and directed the visitor to a hybrid page that presented (1) product information from the third party, and (2) visual "look and feel" elements from the host website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258-59. Given this particular Internet-based solution, the court held that the claimed invention did not merely use the Internet to perform a business practice known from the pre-Internet world, but rather was necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in computer networks. Id. at 1257. That is not the case here. As noted previously, Appellant's claimed invention, in essence, is directed to soliciting and evaluating product development contributions received from participants, and compensating participants according to that evaluation-albeit using computer-based components to achieve that end. The claimed invention here is not 25 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 necessarily rooted in computer technology in the sense contemplated by DDR where the claimed invention solved a challenge particular to the Internet. Although Appellant's invention uses various computer-based components noted previously, the claimed invention does not solve a challenge particular to the computing components used to implement this functionality. Nor is this invention analogous to that which the court held eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) despite Appellant's arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 102, 104, 119-20, 131-32, 140-42; Reply Br. 32-34). There, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using particular information and techniques-an improvement over manual three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1316. But unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed invention here merely uses generic computing components to solicit and evaluate product development contributions received from participants, and compensate participants according to that evaluation. This generic computer implementation is not only directed to fundamental human activity organization, mathematical concepts, and mental processes, but also does not improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP Am. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing McRO). 26 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 Appellant's reliance on the decision in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (App. Br. 118, 147--49; Reply Br. 38-39) is unavailing. There, the court held that a claim directed to using accounting information with which a network accounting record is correlated to enhance the record was held eligible because the claim involved an unconventional technological solution ( enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases). Although the court recognized that this solution used generic components, the recited enhancing function necessarily required these generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. Id. at 1300--01. Notably, the recited enhancement in Amdocs depended on not only the network's distributed architecture, but also on the network devices and "gatherers" working together in a distributed environment. Id. at 1301. In reaching its eligibility conclusion, the court noted the patent's emphasis on the drawbacks of previous systems where all network information flowed to one location making it very difficult to keep up with massive record flows from network devices and requiring huge databases. Id. at 1300. The court also noted similar network-based drawbacks that were overcome by similar unconventional distributed solutions in other patents at issue. See id. at 1305---06. That is not the case here. Although the claimed invention uses conventional computing components that store and process data, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to show that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality as in Amdocs. 27 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 Appellant's reliance on BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (App. Br. 143--45; Reply Br. 37-38) is likewise unavailing. There, the court held eligible claims directed to a technology-based solution to filter Internet content that overcame existing problems with other Internet filtering systems by making a known filtering solution-namely a "one-size-fits-all" filter at an Internet Service Provider (ISP}--more dynamic and efficient via individualized filtering at the ISP. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351. Notably, this customizable filtering solution improved the computer system's performance and, therefore, was patent-eligible. See id. But unlike the filtering system improvements in BASCOM that added significantly more to the abstract idea in that case, the claimed invention here uses generic computing components to implement an abstract idea as noted previously. We also find unavailing Appellant's reliance on Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (App. Br. 154--56; Reply Br. 41 ). There, the court held eligible claims directed to a computer memory system with a main memory connected to a bus with a cache connected thereto, where the system's programmable operational characteristics determined the type of data stored by the cache. Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1257---62. Notably, the court emphasized the recited improvement in computer capabilities in that case, namely by using programmable operational characteristics that were configurable based on the processor's type. Id. at 1259---60. That is not the case here. To the extent that Appellant contends that the claimed invention is directed to such improvements in computer 28 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 capabilities (see App. Br. 154--56; Reply Br. 41), there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Appellant's reliance on Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (2018) (Reply Br. 23) is likewise unavailing. There, the court held eligible claims directed to a behavior-based virus scanning system. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the claimed invention employed a new kind of file that enabled a computer security system to do that which could not be done previously, including accumulating and using newly-available, behavior-based information about potential threats. Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305. That is not the case here. To the extent that Appellant contends that the claimed invention is directed to such improvements in computer capabilities (see Reply Br. 23), there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. We reach the same conclusion regarding Appellant's reliance on Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (2018) (Reply Br. 21 ). There, the court held eligible claims reciting a computing device that could display an application summary window that was not only reachable directly from the main menu, but could also display a limited list of selectable functions while the application was in an un-launched state. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1360-63. Upon selecting a function, the device would then launch the application and initiate the selected function. Id. at 1360. In reaching its eligibility conclusion, the court noted that the claimed invention was directed to an improved user interface for computing devices that used a particular manner of summarizing and presenting a limited set of 29 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 information to the user, unlike conventional user interface methods that displayed a generic index on a computer. Id. at 1362---63. That is not the case here. To the extent that Appellant contends that the claimed invention is directed to such improvements in computer capabilities (see Reply Br. 21 ), there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Appellant's reliance on Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (2017) (App. Br. 153-54; Reply Br. 39--40) is likewise unavailing. There, the court held eligible claims reciting determining an orientation of an object relative to a moving reference frame based on signals from two inertial sensors mounted respectively on the object and on the moving reference frame. Id. at 1345--49. In reaching its eligibility conclusion, the court noted that the claimed invention used inertial sensors in an unconventional manner to reduce errors in measuring a moving object's relative position and orientation on a moving reference frame. Id. at 1348- 49. That is not the case here. To the extent that Appellant contends that the claimed invention is directed to such improvements in computer capabilities (see App. Br. 153-54; Reply Br. 39--40), there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Accordingly, we do not find that the claim recites additional elements improving (1) the computer itself, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea 30 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 on a computer; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05([)). We also find unavailing Appellant's contention that the claimed invention does not preempt all ways of enabling online collaborative content management for product development in its field. App. Br. 199. Where, as here, the claims cover a patent-ineligible concept, preemption concerns "are fully addressed and made moot" by an analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In conclusion, although the recited functions may be beneficial by soliciting and evaluating product development contributions received from participants, and compensating participants according to that evaluation, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See id. at 1379-80. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 221 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 221: Alice/Mayo Step Two Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, claim 221 's additional recited elements, namely the recited (1) online collaborative content management system; (2) data structure; (3) server; and ( 4) user devices----considered individually and as an ordered combination----do not provide an inventive concept such that these additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As noted above, the claimed invention merely uses generic computing components to implement the recited abstract idea. 31 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 To the extent Appellant contends that the recited limitations, including those detailed above in connection with Alice step one, add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two (see App. Br. 181-199; Reply Br. 25--48), these limitations are not additional elements beyond the abstract idea, but rather are directed to the abstract idea as noted previously. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (instructing that additional recited elements should be evaluated in Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether they (1) add specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Rather, the recited (1) online collaborative content management system; (2) data structure; (3) server; and (4) user devices are the additional recited elements whose generic computing functionality is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361---62 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting computer dictionary definition of "data structure" as "[a] physical or logical relationship among data elements, designed to support specific data manipulation functions") ( emphasis omitted); Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1368 (noting that a recited user profile (i.e., a profile keyed to a user identity), database, and communication medium are generic computer elements); Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services, Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an "interface," "network," and "database" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); buySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a 32 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."); US 2008/0046307 Al (describing an Internet-based market research system that uses generic computing components, including a server and database, that extends an offer to grant an ownership interest in a company in exchange for receiving feedback from respondent members of a target market). Accord Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 20-21 (concluding that the claims' general-purpose computing devices do not add significantly more than the abstract idea). In conclusion, the additional recited elements----considered individually and as an ordered combination----do not add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 221. Independent claims 229, 231, and 239 For reasons similar to those indicated previously with respect to independent claim 221, we also sustain the Examiner's ineligibility rejection of independent claims 229,231, and 239. Final Act. 2-15; Ans. 7-21, 23- 33. Despite Appellant's arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 199-202), the minor differences between the independent claims, including the ( 1) methods recited in claims 231 and 239 versus the systems recited in claims 221 and 229, 9 and (2) the server (a) containing the recited data structure 9 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 208 ("[T]he system claims are no different from the method claims in substance."); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1374 (noting that the underlying invention for both the method and computer- 33 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 ( claims 221, 229) versus storing that structure ( claims 231, 239), and (b) granting derivative rights ( claims 229, 239) versus entitlement options (claims 221,231), do not change the fact that claims 229,231, and 239 are directed to an abstract idea when considered as a whole. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 229, 231, and 239. Dependent Claims We are, however, persuaded of error in the Examiner's ineligibility rejection of dependent claims 222-225, 228, 230, 232-235, 238, 240-242, 246-249, 253-255, 259, 260, and 264--270. In the rejection, the Examiner's sole articulated basis for rejecting the dependent claims on pages 14 and 15 of the Final Office Action is reproduced below: Each of the dependent claims are directed towards subject matter that the court has determined to be an abstract idea such as comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options ( e.g. SmartGene ), using categories to organize, store and transmit information ( e.g. Cyberfone ), comparing data that can be performed mentally (e.g. Ambry, Myraid CAFC), obtaining and comparing intangible data ( e.g. Cybersource ), organizing information through mathematical correlations ( e.g. Digitech), using a mathematical formula, algorithm, calculation to obtain a result ( e.g. Benson, Flook, Bancorp) or collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis ( e.g. Electric Power Group). Aside from these abstract ideas the dependent claims recited the readable medium claims was a method for detecting credit card fraud-not a manufacture for storing computer-readable information); see also id. (noting that the court in In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982), treated apparatus claim 7 as a method claim for purposes of determining eligibility). 34 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 performance of computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional such as receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic record keeping, automating metal [sic] tasks and receiving or transmitting data over a network. As per the July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, [t]he courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well- understood, routine, and conventional: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic record keeping; automating metal [sic] tasks; and receiving or transmitting data over a network. Not only is this articulated rationale general and conclusory, it fails to identify any limitations in the dependent claims, let alone explain why the claims are directed to an abstract idea in light of their additional limitations to establish a prima facie case of eligibility under § 101 as Appellant indicates. See Reply Br. 26-27 (noting this deficiency). Notably, Appellant contests separately the Examiner's rejection regarding a number of dependent claims with respect to the following groups: (1) claims 222-225, 228,230, 232-235, 238, 240-242, 246-249, 253-255, 259, 260 and 264--270 (App. Br. 203); (2) claims 230, 240, 255, and 260 (App. Br. 204); (3) claims 255 and 260 (App. Br. 204--05); (4) claim 269 (App. Br. 205---06); (5) claims 265 and 270 (App. Br. 206---07); (6) claim 266 (App. Br. 207---08); (7) claim 268 (App. Br. 208---09); (8) claims 259 and 264 (App. Br. 209-10); (9) claim 267 (App. Br. 210-11); (10) claims 222,232,241, and 248 (App. Br. 211-12); (11) claims 242 and 249 (App. Br. 212-13); (12) claims 224,234,247, and 254 (App. Br. 213); (13) claims 225 and 235 (App. Br. 215); (14) claims 228 and 238 (App. Br. 215- 35 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 16); (15) claims 223 and 233 (App. Br. 216-17); and (16) claims 246 and 253 (App. Br. 217-18). In responding to Appellant's separate arguments regarding these particular dependent claims, however, the Examiner simply repeats the above conclusory statements with no further explanation or analysis. See Ans. 22-23. The prima facie case is a procedural tool of patent examination, allocating the respective burdens between the Examiner and an applicant. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). First, the Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case ofunpatentability. Id. (citing In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). If the Examiner meets that burden, the burden then shifts to the applicant to rebut the prima facie case with evidence or argument. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. Then, patentability is determined on the totality of the record by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration of persuasiveness of argument. Id. As noted in MPEP § 2106. 07, the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of ineligibility is on the Examiner to explain clearly and specifically why claims are ineligible, so that the applicant has sufficient notice and can respond effectively. That did not happen here with respect to the dependent claims. To the extent that the Examiner finds that the additional limitations do not add significantly more to the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice step two, we cannot say on this record, nor will we speculate in that regard here in the first instance on appeal. What we can say, however, is that the Examiner's gloss on the dependent claims' 36 Appeal2018-005329 Application 12/523,427 additional limitations falls short of establishing a prima facie case of ineligibility on this record. Accordingly, because the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility for dependent claims 222-225, 228, 230, 232-235, 238, 240-242, 246-249, 253-255, 259,260, and 264--270, we are constrained by this record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of those claims. CONCLUSION Under§ 101, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 221,229, 231, and 239, but erred in rejecting claims 222-225, 228, 230, 232-235, 238,240-242,246-249,253-255,259,260,and264-270. DECISION We affirm-in-part the Examiner's decision to reject claims 221-225, 228-235,238-242,246-249,253-255,259,260,and264-270. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 37 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation