George Kunjachan et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 14, 20212021000875 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2021) 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. 15/610,510 05/31/2017 George Chiramattel Kunjachan 37202/698001; 1710244US 8280 57956 7590 06/14/2021 FBFK/Intuit Robert Lord 3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 3200 HOUSTON, TX 77027 EXAMINER ZHANG, DUAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/14/2021 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): docketing@fbfk.law jhathaway@fbfk.law rlord@fbfk.law PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GEORGE CHIRAMATTEL KUNJACHAN, AMIT ARYA, and PETER ALLEN VOGEL __________________ Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JAMES P. CALVE, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–21, which are all of the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Intuit, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 recites: 1. A system, comprising: a plurality of transaction storage devices, each transaction storage device of the plurality of transaction storage devices comprising: a data store that: receives a request, from a computing system of a service provider, to push a detailed transaction corresponding to a secure identifier, wherein the secure identifier is generated, using an encoding function, from a user identifier of a user; and stores the detailed transaction based on a determination that the detailed transaction is valid; and a validator that: obtains, from a registry, a validation rule corresponding to the secure identifier; and performs the determination, wherein the determination comprises applying the validation rule to the request; and the registry, that stores at least the validation rule. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1–3, 7–11, 15–18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sahu2 and MacGregor.3 2 US 9,256,761 B1, issued February 9, 2016. 3 US 2015/0269541 A1, published September 24, 2015. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 3 Claims 4–6, 12–14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sahu, MacGregor, and Carrott.4 ANALYSIS Claims 1–8 Rejected for Indefiniteness The Examiner determines that the limitations “data store,” “validator,” and “registry” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and the Specification does not disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function or clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Non-Final Act. 5–6. In particular, the Examiner determines that each term is a generic placeholder or nonce term with no specific structural meaning for performing the claimed function, and each term is modified by functional language rather than structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function of each. Ans. 3–4. To determine whether § 112(f) applies to a limitation, we consider “whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). If a limitation uses the word “means,” there is a rebuttable presumption that § 112(f) applies. Where, as here, Appellant has not used the term “means,” there is a rebuttable presumption that the provision does not apply. Id. at 1348–49. Where a claim term lacks the word “means,” the presumption can be overcome and § 112(f) will apply if it is demonstrated that a claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. Id. at 1349. 4 US 2016/0132877 A1, published May 12, 2016. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 4 Appellant argues that these features are described in the Specification as computing system structures rather than generic placeholders that invoke ¶ 112(f). Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 2. Appellant also asserts that these features are recited to perform actions rather than functions. Appeal Br. 9. The term “data store” conveys a meaning of structure that stores data. Indeed, claim 1 recites the data store “stores the detailed transaction based on a determination that the detailed transaction is valid.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The Specification describes “data store” as having structure. The data store is part of a transaction storage device, which is any type of storage unit or device for storing data (e.g., file system, database, collection of tables, or other storage mechanism. Spec. ¶ 26. A data store 118a–n is used to store transactional information. Id. ¶¶ 27, 30. A data store may be an accounting system or a personal financial management application such as Mint® or a business management application such as Intuit® QuickBooks Online®. Id. ¶¶ 19, 21, 27. “The data store may be viewed as similar to an email inbox: anyone may push a transaction to the data store if they know the address of the data store (e.g., just as anyone can send an email message to a recipient if they know the recipient’s email address.)” Id. ¶ 17. When a user transacts business with a user identifier, the detailed transaction can be pushed to the appropriate data store and stored with the secure identifier for that user identifier so all of the transactions for the same secure identifier can be aggregated and stored at a single data store. Id. ¶ 20. The data store thus contains transactional information for a secure identifier and information for multiple secure identifiers. It also provides functionality to process a request to push (store) detailed transactions for a secure identifier. Id. ¶¶ 30, 36. 43, 48, 52. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 5 The Specification describes flowcharts and procedures used by the data store to receive a request to push and store a detailed transaction at the data store. See Spec. ¶¶ 17–21, 30, 43, 46–54, Fig. 3. “Registry” conveys a meaning of structure that stores validation rules. A system includes a registry configured to store validation rules. Spec. ¶ 5. A registry 106 is “any type of storage unit and/or device (e.g., a file system, database, collection of tables, or any other storage mechanism) for storing data.” Id. ¶ 28. A registry may include multiple different types of storage units and/or devices as part of computing system 600. Id. The registry may include a data store map that maps secure identifiers to universal resource identifiers (URIs) of data stores so a URI of a data store is registered with a corresponding secure identifier to indicate which data store is designated to store detailed transactions for a secure identifier. Id. ¶¶ 17, 29. A registry can process a user request to register a URI of a data source and a service provider request to lookup a URI of a data store. Id. ¶¶ 20, 33, 44, 48. The registry also includes a validation profile 202 that may include a secure identifier and a validation rule that specifies a particular validation procedure that may be used to validate a detailed transaction when a specific secure identifier is included in a request. Spec. ¶¶ 34, 40, 42. The registry obtains a validation rule from a user so the validation rule thereafter can be obtained from the registry. Id. ¶¶ 5, 50. The registry includes functionality to process a request from a validator of a transaction storage device to obtain a validation rule corresponding to a secure identifier. Id. ¶ 44. Appellant describes flowcharts for this process. Id. ¶¶ 46–66, Figs. 3, 4A. In step 302, a validation rule corresponding to a secure identifier may be obtained from the registry. Id. ¶¶ 50, 55 (step 402 of Fig. 4A), Fig. 3. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 6 The “validator” obtains a validation rule corresponding to the secure identifier from the registry and applies the validation rule to the request. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The validator is implemented in hardware (e.g., circuitry), software, or a combination, and it evaluates the validity of a detailed transaction and requests a push to a data store when it validates the transaction. Spec. ¶ 43. A validation rule specifies a particular validation procedure to be used by the validator to validate a transaction and different validation rules may specify different conditions for different validation procedures to be triggered for a specific secure identifier. Id. ¶¶ 34, 35, 40, 42, 50, 51. The validator applies a validation rule to a detailed transaction to determine whether the transaction is valid. Id. A flowchart of this process is provided in Figure 4A. Id. ¶¶ 53–60. The Specification describes different types of validation rule procedures to be performed by the validator such as automatically validating a detailed transaction by comparing it to transaction summaries or validating a transaction only after the participant(s), service provider, or financial institution provide explicit approval. Id. ¶¶ 40, 50. The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that § 112(f) does not apply. Each of the limitations of a data store, a registry, and a validator, interpreted in light of the Specification, convey sufficient structure used to perform the claimed functions. Even if we consider these limitations to invoke ¶ 112(f), the Specification describes sufficient corresponding structure with flowcharts and procedures used to implement these limitations and perform the claimed functions and/or acts as discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–8 for indefiniteness. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 7 Eligibility of Claims 1–21 Appellant largely argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 10–18. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We also address Appellant’s separate arguments for claim 9. The Examiner determines claim 1 recites an apparatus as a statutory category of invention. Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner determines that to receive a request to push a detailed transaction, obtain a validation rule, determine whether the detailed transaction is valid, and store the detailed transaction recites a method of organizing human activity except for the transaction storage device. Id. at 8–9. The Examiner determines that each function can be performed manually by a person receiving and writing down a request to push a detailed transaction from another person and manually sending it to another person, obtaining a validation rule from another person, and validating and manually storing the detailed transactions as part of normal sales activities or behaviors. Id. at 9; Ans. 5–6. The Examiner determines that the additional element of a transaction storage device uses a computer and network to perform the abstract idea but does not improve computer functions, other technology, or a technical field. Non-Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner determines that claim 1 does not apply the abstract idea on a particular machine, transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment. Id. The Examiner also determines that using the transaction storage device to perform the claimed functions amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer system without significantly more. Id. at 10–11. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 8 Principles of Law Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18. The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.5 Id. at 52–55. 5 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 9 If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim (3) provides to an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Revised Guidance Step 1 We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention, namely, a machine. See 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Step One Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception? We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity involving a fundamental economic practice and mental processes that can be performed by a person as mental steps or with pen and paper. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The claimed system receives, validates, and stores transaction data. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The system stores financial transaction data generated by transaction sources for later access by a financial (accounting) application of a user. See Spec. ¶¶ 1–5, 17–22. Receiving, validating, and storing financial transaction data by an intermediary party is a fundamental economic practice. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (intermediated settlement by a party that creates and updates shadow records of parties’ actual accounts at exchange institutions is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our commerce system). Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 10 Here, the claimed system uses a transaction storage device and a data store to receive requests from service providers to push a detailed transaction and then to store the detailed transaction in the data store after validating it. Essentially, the data store creates a shadow record of the detailed transaction for accounting by a user or other party and validates the transaction before storing it to mitigate the risk that the transaction is not accurate or does not correspond to the user. Mitigating risk is another fundamental economic practice. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010). Receiving data such as a detailed transaction and storing that data is a method of organizing the human commercial activity represented by the data and can be performed as a mental process. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital image data in an organized manner recites a method of organizing human activity); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (data collection, recognition, and storage are functions that humans always have performed such as banks reviewing checks, recognizing relevant data, and storing that information in their records). Here, claim 1 recites a system comprising generic transaction storage devices and a data store that receive and store detailed transaction data after validating the data by applying a validation rule. These functions are recited at a high level of generality without any technical details. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 11 The claimed validator simply obtains a validation rule from a generic registry and applies the validation rule to the request without any technical details being claimed for this function. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The generic description of the validator and its function in the Specification also confirm that it replicates mental steps that a person would perform to apply a rule to validate a request. The validator includes functionality to evaluate the validity of a detailed transaction using validation rules. Spec. ¶¶ 43, 51. A validation rule may specify that a particular validation procedure be used by the validator. Id. ¶¶ 40, 50. A validation rule may specify a particular validation procedure to be used such as automatic validation by comparing the detailed transaction with a transaction summary, or validation after the user, service provider, and/or financial institution identified in the detailed transaction provides explicit approval. Id. ¶ 50. A person can apply such a validation rule as a mental process to validate a detailed transaction. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding steps of obtaining information about Internet credit card transactions, making a map of the credit card numbers, and using the map to determine if a transaction is valid can be performed entirely in the human mind including the logical reasoning steps by writing down a list of credit card transactions from a particular IP address and observing transactions to see if they use different credit cards and user names at the same IP address). Appellant argues that the claims relate to receiving a request to push a detailed transaction, obtaining a validation rule, determining if the detailed transaction is valid, and storing the detailed transaction but does not relate to agreements and contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors or business relations. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 12 As discussed above, the Revised Guidance recognizes fundamental economic practices as certain methods of organizing human activity. The independent claims recite a fundamental economic practice as identified above. The Specification confirms that detailed transaction data relates to commercial activities of financial institutions that offer credit/debit cards to users, retailers, and e-commerce stores. Spec. ¶¶ 18, 20, 24. User identifiers may be payment card numbers. Id. ¶¶ 29, 31, 32, 41. A detailed transaction may be Level 3 data of the credit card industry. Id. ¶ 37. Banks and credit card processors may approve detailed transactions for the validator. Id. ¶ 40. Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s determination that claim 9 recites an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 12–13. We agree with the Examiner that claim 9 recites the abstract idea identified above by steps of receiving a request to push a detailed transaction corresponding to a secure identifier, obtaining a validation rule corresponding to the secure identifier, applying the validation rule to determine whether the detailed transaction is valid, and storing the detailed transaction based on determining that it is valid. Appeal Br. 25–26 (Claims App.); Non-Final Act. 8. As discussed above for claim 1, these data gathering and analysis steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity of the fundamental economic practice identified above with mental process steps. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355; TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372–73; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Put another way, the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that the form of various method, system, and media claims did not change the patent eligibility analysis under § 101). Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 13 Appellant argues that, interpreted consistent with the Specification, the claimed steps cannot be performed by a human because the Specification describes computing systems used to implement the claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant asserts that the Specification does not describe human performance of the claimed subject matter steps, and claim 1 recites a data store of a transaction storage device that receives and stores a detailed transaction, a validator that obtains a validation rule from a registry, and a registry that stores the validation rule, and these features cannot be human behaviors or activity and are not normally performed by humans. Id. Purely mental processes can be unpatentable even when performed by a computer. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)). As discussed above, data receiving, processing, and analysis steps, when recited at such a high level of generality, recite mental processes and methods of organizing human activity as indicated by the decisions discussed above. The fact that a computer and its components exist in the physical realm does not end the § 101 inquiry; otherwise, patent eligibility would depend on the draftsman’s art. Alice, 573 U.S. at 224. As indicated by Content Extraction, claims to a computerized system used to collect, recognize, and store data recite functions that humans always have performed such as banks reviewing checks, recognizing relevant data, and storing that information in their records. Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. Similarly, analyzing Internet credit card transactions made from an IP address by collecting, mapping, and analyzing (validating) transactions based on credit card numbers and other information can be performed as mental processes to detect credit card fraud. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372–73. Here, the claims receive, validate, and store transaction data. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 14 Accordingly, we determine that claims 1 and 9 recite the abstract idea identified above. Alice Step One Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two: Is There an Integration into a Practical Application? We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not improve computers or technology or implement the abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claim. Nor does claim 1 include elements that transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. See id. at 55; Non-Final Act. 9–10. Appellant argues that the claims provide a practical application by receiving a request to push a detailed transaction for a secure identifier, generating using an encoding function, obtaining a validation rule for the secure identifier, and determining based on applying the validation rule to the request, whether the transaction is valid. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues that these features aggregate transactions into a single data store so users don’t have to enter data for important transactions. Id. at 14–15. These features are part of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. As such, they cannot be additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (“additional elements” are claim features, limitations, and/or steps recited in a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features to ensure it does not monopolize the abstract idea). Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 15 Appellant argues that the claims recite specific steps to accomplish a desired result using a specific implementation of an existing tool to improve the functioning of an overall technological process to make the claim patent eligible. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). We are not persuaded. The claims in Koninklijke improved existing technological processes of error checking in data transmissions. Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150. The claims required a permutation applied to original data modified “in time” as a specific way of varying the way check data is generated to improve the ability of prior art error detection systems to detect systematic errors. Id. Here, claim 1 applies “a validation rule” to a request to push a detailed transaction without any technical details or improvements to the validation process. As discussed under Prong One, the validation rule is described in generic terms. Spec. ¶¶ 5–7, 34. It may require explicit approval of a user, service provider, or financial institution. Id. ¶¶ 22, 40. Applying a generic rule to validate a request to push a detailed transaction does not improve computers or technology. The Specification confirms that the claim does not improve computers or technology but instead replicates mental steps. McRO illustrates why claim 1 here is not patent eligible. There, the claimed display of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated characters on screens for viewing by human eyes improved how a display operated to produce better quality images. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The claims in McRO were directed to the creation of something physical.”). No such improvement is claimed here. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 16 Without more, encoding and decoding data does not render a claim non-abstract. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims recited the abstract idea of encoding and decoding image data) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (organizing, displaying, and manipulating data encoded for human- and machine-readability is directed to an abstract concept)); see also Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 888–90 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (generating a request identifier by encrypting a user identifier in an alphanumeric string did not make the claim patent eligible where the patentee did not claim to have invented encryption techniques or user identifiers). Finjan and Ancora recognized improvements to computer security as patent eligible subject matter as Appellant argues. Appeal Br. 15. However, those decisions illustrate why claim 1 here is not patent eligible. In Finjan, the court held virus scanning is well-known and an abstract idea, but a claimed “behavior-based” virus scan was eligible subject matter because it analyzed downloadable code to determine whether it performed dangerous or unwanted operations, e.g., renaming or deleting files. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). As such, it improved on traditional “code-matching” systems that recognize the presence of previously-identified viruses by comparing downloadable code to a database of known suspicious code. Id. The “behavior-based” approach protected against previously unknown viruses and “obfuscated code” used to cosmetically modify known viruses to avoid detection by focusing on the way that the code operated. Id. Here, claim 1 recites no particular method of validating or encoding data, much less one that improves these processes. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 17 Ancora stands for the proposition that “[i]mproving security . . . can be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). There, the method improved the vulnerability of license-authorization software to hacking. Id. at 1349. It did so by using a specific functional improvement of a structure containing a license record stored in a particular, modifiable, non-volatile portion of a computer’s BIOS and the structure in that memory location interacted with computer memory that contains the program to be verified. Id. at 1348–49. Here, the claimed validator obtains a validation rule from a registry and applies the rule to the request with no technical details or purported innovation to computers or to validation processing. The Specification describes the encoding function as a one-way hash function used to generate a secure identifier. Spec. ¶ 31. Other encoding and cryptographic techniques may be used to generate the secure identifier from a user identifier. Id. ¶ 32. Not even these generic details of encoding are claimed. Nor is there any indication that Appellant has invented or improved the claimed encoding or validation functions. The claimed transaction storage device is any type of storage unit and/or device such as a file system, database, collection of tables, or any other storage mechanism for storing data and may include multiple different storage units and/or device. Spec. ¶ 26. This description indicates that the transaction storage device is a generic storage device that does not improve computers or other technology. Nor does it represent a particular machine that is integral to the claim or that places a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea recited in the claim. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 18 The data store, validator, and registry are described in equally broad terms as devices and applications that perform generic functions of receiving data (a request) and storing data (a detailed transaction) and analyzing data (a request) using a validation rule stored in the registry. No improvement is made to computers or other technology by these devices. Automating a process that can be performed manually does not make that process patent eligible. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. In those cases, ‘the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.’”) (citation omitted); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task, at most, improves the abstract idea using the computer as a tool but does not improve the functioning of the computer itself); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278 (“To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not.”). Communicating over a network for device interaction is a building block of the modern economy rather than an improvement to computers or other technology. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 773 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Spec. ¶¶ 23, 95, 98–100, Fig. 6B. Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks an additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 19 Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Include an Inventive Concept? We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in the industry. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of the Alice analysis considers if a claim adds a limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity). Individually, the additional elements of claim 1 are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea identified under Prong One. Without the generic computer limitations nothing remains in the claims but the abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity and mental steps. Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280. “[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Using a generic computer or network to automate or implement an abstract idea cannot provide significantly more. See Non-Final Act. 10–11; Ans. 8–9. Any alleged novelty arises in the context of the abstract idea not the physical realm of computers or technology. See BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims that improved an abstract idea without reciting computer improvements were not patent eligible). Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 20 As an ordered combination, claim 1 recites no more than when the limitations are considered individually. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (the use of off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology to gather, send, and present desired information, including concurrent visualization of two or more types of information, even time-synchronized, did not provide an inventive concept). As discussed under Prong Two, the descriptions of the transaction storage device, data store, validator, and registry indicates these elements are well-known and perform routine, conventional activities to receive requests, store detailed transactions, and obtain and apply validation rules stored in a generic registry. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (where nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification required anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information, such invocation of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive does not provide an inventive step in the application of the abstract idea). The data store is described as including conventional accounting applications that perform well-known activities. See Spec. ¶¶ 19, 21, 27. The transaction storage device and registry include any type of conventional storage unit and/or device. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. The validator can be hardware (circuitry), software, or a combination. Id. ¶ 43. The general descriptions of these elements confirm they are well-known enough that further details of their structure and functions are not necessary to understand their operation. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 21 Nor has Appellant established that the functions performed by these elements are innovative, unconventional, or non-routine in the art. Even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, the improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to computers or other technology. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–21, which fall therewith. Claims 1–3, 7–11, 15–18, and 21 Rejected over Sahu and MacGregor Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recites a limitation that receives by the transaction storage device or data store a request to push a detailed transaction corresponding to a secure identifier and store the detailed transaction. Appeal Br. 24–27 (Claims App.). The Examiner cites Sahu to teach transaction storage devices that receive a request from a computing system to push a detailed transaction corresponding to a secure identifier and MacGregor to store the detailed transaction based on a determination that it is valid. Non-Final Act. 12–13. Appellant argues that Sahu receives a request to retrieve data from a database table rather than a request to push data as claimed. Appeal Br. 20. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 22 The Specification distinguishes between accessing transactional data by using a “pull” model driven by explicit requests to retrieve the data from financial institutions, as is done conventionally, and the claimed request to push detailed transaction data for storage in a transaction storage device or a data store. See Spec. ¶¶ 3, 17, 21, 30. Whereas conventional pull systems require requests to collect each detailed transaction making it difficult to collect such detailed transactions in a timely manner (id. ¶ 3), the claimed push model allows a user to register a secure identifier to a data store and then allow financial institutions and others to push transactions to the data store by providing the data store address similar to an email inbox (id. ¶ 17). Users permit service providers to push data to a data store and store the data with a user’s secure identifier. Id. ¶¶ 20, 21. A request to push transaction data is essentially a request to store the data in a data store. See id. ¶ 30. In contrast to the claimed request to push a detailed transaction, Sahu teaches a conventional pull request in which a user’s request to retrieve data from a collection is received and the data is retrieved from a data table and provided to the user in response to the request. See Sahu, 103:40–105:36, Fig. 34 (cited in Non-Final Act. 12–13 and Ans. 9). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16 or their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 21. Claims 4–6, 12–14, 19, and 20 Rejected over Sahu, MacGregor, and Carrott. The Examiner’s reliance on Carrott to teach features of claims 4–6, 12–14, 19, and 20 does not cure the deficiencies of Sahu as to claims 1, 9, and 16 from which these claims depend. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims. Appeal 2021-000875 Application 15/610,510 23 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–21 101 Eligibility 1–21 1–8 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–8 1–3, 7–11, 15–18, 21 103 Sahu, MacGregor 1–3, 7–11, 15–18, 21 4–6, 12–14, 19, 20 103 Sahu, MacGregor, Carrott 4–6, 12–14, 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1–21 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation