Hsiao, Sissie Ling-Ie. et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 12, 20202019002926 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/070,038 03/23/2011 Sissie Ling-Ie Hsiao 16113-2176001 1234 26192 7590 05/12/2020 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SISSIE LING-IE HSIAO, CHAO CAI, ERIC W. EWALD, CAMERON M. TANGNEY, ROBERT A. WALKER II, JAPJIT TULSI, MING LEI, and ZHIMIN HE ____________ Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, 9–13, 16–20, and 22–26, which are all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 2, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21 have been canceled. Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosure is directed to methods and systems for providing reports to a content provider that “specify conversion path performance measures that measure user interactions with content provided by the advertiser and that occurred prior to a conversion,” which are “a total quantity of interactions between the advertiser’s content and a user prior to the user performing an action that constitutes a conversion.” See Spec. 2:5– 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A method performed by a data processing apparatus, the method comprising: obtaining, for a particular advertiser, user interaction data for a plurality of conversions; for each conversion among the plurality of conversions: creating, within a table that stores data for a plurality of different advertisers in multiple rows of the table, a row that is indexed to a conversion identifier that uniquely identifies the conversion and the particular advertiser; storing, within the row that is indexed to the conversion identifier, a set of the user interaction data for a user that performed the conversion identified by the conversion identifier, wherein the set of the user interaction data is the user interaction data representing user interactions of the user that were performed within a specified amount of time prior to the conversion, wherein the storing includes: storing, within a same cell of the row, user interaction data for multiple different user actions of a same interaction type along with timestamps for each of the different user interactions; identifying, from the rows having a conversion identifier that identifies the particular advertiser, a set of Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 3 conversions including conversions that were performed by multiple different users; accessing, within cells of the rows having the conversion identifier that identifies the particular advertiser, the user interaction data that specify an identifier corresponding to a user that performed the conversion and one or more advertisements from the particular advertiser that the user interacted with prior to performing the conversion; determining, by one or more data processing apparatus, for each conversion, and using the user interaction data, how many of the one or more advertisements from the particular advertiser were clicked by the user that performed the conversion prior to the conversion being performed by the user based on a number of user interactions of the same interaction type that are specified by the user interaction data included in the same cell that includes the user interaction data for user clicks; determining, by one or more data processing apparatus and for each of various different particular numbers of user clicks of the one or more advertisements, how many of the conversions from the set of conversions were performed by a corresponding user after the corresponding user clicked the particular number of the one or more advertisements; receiving, through a campaign user interface presented to a provider of the one or more advertisements at a client device, a request for a path length report; in response to receiving the request, dynamically generating a report user interface that includes the path length report, wherein, for each of the particular number of user clicks, the path length report specifies how many conversions were performed by users after those users performed the particular number of user clicks of the one or more advertisements; updating the campaign user interface to incorporate a presentation of the report user interface that is presented to the provider at the client device; detecting, through the report user interface presented to the provider of the one or more advertisements, interaction with Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 4 a conversion type selection control presented in the report user interface, wherein interaction with the conversion type selection control initiates a request for an updated path length report that specifies path length measures for a specific type of conversion; and dynamically updating, based on the client side interaction, a presentation of the report user interface, presented to the provider of the one or more advertisements, to modify the path length report based on the specific type of conversion selected through the interaction with the conversion type selection control, wherein the dynamic updating causes the path length report to visually present path length measures for the specific type of conversion. Appeal Br. 20–22 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1, 3–6, 9–13, 16–20, and 22–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. Final Act. 3–5.3 ANALYSIS Rejection and Arguments The Examiner determines “the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner specifically determines “the independent claims describe fundamental economic practices that the courts have deemed abstract” and provides a list of court cases relating to the subject matter similar to Appellant’s claims as follows: These steps describe the concept which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as collecting and comparing known information (Classen), collecting information, 3 The Examiner withdrew the final rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 9–13, 16–20, and 22–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 5 analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection an analysis (Electric Power), obtaining and comparing intangible data (CyberSource), and providing user-selected media to portable devices (Affinity Labs). These concepts relate to an “idea” as well as “certain methods of organizing human activity”. These steps further describe the concept of advertising, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as displaying of advertising (Ultramercial). The concept described the claims above is not meaningfully different than those “idea” as well as “organizing human activity” found by the courts to be abstract ideas. Id. The Examiner finds “[i]n the instant case, the majority of the limitations are drawn to what the courts have recognized to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and/or devices.” Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner also finds “the additional limitations of one or more ‘data processing apparatus’ which is/are used to execute the limitations of the claim including stored user interactions, accessing data, and determining conversion information,” the “client device” of claim 1, “the use of a system and a data store (claim 13), as well as a non-transitory storage media embodying software operable when executed (claim 26) in order to execute the claimed limitations” are “recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications” with no indication that their combination “improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.” Final Act. 4. Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 6 Appellant contends the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea because, similar to the claims in McRO,4 improves an existing technological process such as “efficient storage and retrieval of information from a table to facilitate the efficient creation of a report, thereby improving the functioning of the computer itself.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues “the claims present previously unknown, specific and concrete solutions to problems that have been faced by those skilled in the art, such as how to efficiently manage immense amounts of data in a way that will allow reports to be generated within a reasonable amount of time.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Spec. pp. 7, 8, 122, 124). Referring to the holding in Enfish,5 Appellant argues “the focus of the claims is on improvement to computer functionality itself” because “the present claims recite a specific technique for storing and accessing data that provides for faster updates to the data, faster searching of the data, and faster report generation than would be possible using other techniques.” Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 1–2. Lastly, Appellant argues that the pending claims do not preempt all ways of implementing the idea because they recite “a specific combination of features that provide ‘a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome.’ (MPEP § 2106.07(b))” and “‘specific limitation[s] other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field,’ and ‘unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.’ (MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)(v)).” Appeal Br. 14– 15. 4 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 5 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 7 Legal Principles “Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Section 101 of the Patent Act provides “[w]hoever 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. 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. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 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 intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 8 mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn 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 (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. The PTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO, 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the 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) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 9 PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, 2018) (Step 2A, Prong 2). 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: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. (Step 2B.) See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56. Abstract Idea Independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea because the claim recites a method of organizing human activities, one of the abstract idea groupings listed in the Guidance. See, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing “[c]ertain methods of organizing human [activities] such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk) and commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) as one of the “enumerated groupings of abstract ideas”). The Specification at page 10 states that the invention generally relates to providing reports of user interactions to advertisers including conversion path performance measures, such as a total quantity of interactions between the content and a user. Examples of the user actions that constitute a conversion are “downloading a white paper, navigating to at least a given depth of a website, viewing at least a certain quantity of web pages, spending at least a predetermined amount of time on a website or web page, or registering on a website.” Spec. 10:15–19. An advertiser tracks conversions by including “a portion of code that monitors user interactions Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 10 (e.g., page selections, content item selections, and other interactions) with advertiser’s website, and can detect a user interaction (or series of user interactions) that constitutes a conversion” in their web pages. Spec. 10:25– 29. Claim 1 recites functions related to the concept of creating a table, storing user interaction data with the search system in a browser related to different user actions, accessing and determining multiple aspects of the user interactions with respect to a transaction, and updating the entries to generate a report. See Appeal Br. 20–22 (Claims App.). Claims 13 and 26 recite a system and a computer storage medium encoded with instructions, respectively, that perform functions similar to the method steps recited in claim 1. Determining and storing user interaction data in a database or table and using the collected information to focus advertising efforts does not require a machine, let alone a particular machine, to implement, and therefore fits squarely within the human activity organization category of the agency’s guidelines. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing human activity including (1) fundamental economic principles or practices, and (2) commercial or legal interactions). Additionally, the recited methods are abstract similar to collecting and analyzing information which was determined to be an abstract idea in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and how organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations was an abstract idea in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Courts have also found claims directed to collecting, recognizing, and storing data in a computer memory to be directed to an abstract idea. Content Extraction and Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 11 Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Similar to buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014), functions performed according to a created contractual relationship are abstract. Thus, we determine that the claim relates to the judicial exception identified above. Although claim 1 recites an abstract idea based on these methods of organizing human activity, 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. The Revised Guidance references the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). We therefore (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 claims do not improve computer functionality, improve another field of technology, utilize a particular machine, or effect a particular physical transformation. Rather, we determine that nothing in the claims imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception. For example, in claim 1 the steps of (1) “obtaining, for a particular advertiser, user interaction data,” which are arranged in a table (2) “identifying, . . ., a set of conversions,” (3) “accessing, . . ., the user interaction data” (4) “determining, . . . ., how many of the one or more Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 12 advertisements from the particular advertiser were clicked by the user,” (5) “determining, . . ., how many of the conversions from the set of conversions were performed by a corresponding user,” (6) dynamically generating and updating a report in response to a request, (7) “detecting, . . ., interaction with a conversion type selection control presented in the report user interface,” (8) and “dynamically updating, . . ., presentation of the report user interface” are merely steps performed by a generic computer that do not improve computer functionality. That is, these recited steps (1)–(8) “do not . . . purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself” but are merely generic functions performed by a conventional processor. Alice, 573 U.S. at 255. Likewise, these same steps (1)–(8) listed above do not improve the technology of the technical field and merely use generic computer components and functions to perform the steps. Also, the recited method steps (1)–(8) above do not require a “particular machine” and can be utilized with a general purpose computer, and the steps performed are purely conventional. In this case, the general purpose computer is merely an object on which the method operates in a conventional manner. See Fig. 3B; Spec. 35:5–14 (describing a table portion 331 including data values related to time lag ranges for conversions); Fig. 4B; Spec. 49:17–25 (describing a table portion 431 including data values related to conversion path lengths). Further, the claim as a whole fails to effect any particular transformation of an article to a different state. The recited steps (1)–(8) fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the judicial exception and rather are mere instructions to apply the method to a generic computer. We disagree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 2–5) that the focus of claims 1, 13, and 26 is on a technical improvement. The mere Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 13 recitation of obtaining, storing, accessing, and determining/identifying data in claim 1 and other independent claims does not embody an improvement in computer capabilities as in Enfish. See 822 F.3d at 1336. We are not persuaded that the claimed invention 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 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 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. In that regard, we agree with the Examiner that The table as claimed is centered on a single piece of information, the conversion identifier itself, with the bulk of the limitations directed to the types of data stored rather than the manner in which it was stored, as was found to be the improvement in Enfish. There is no “new type” of table being created, rather, the table consists of standard rows and cells. This is more analogous to filling in a spreadsheet with multiple types of variables as in, say, Excel. Ans. 4. Additionally, the Examiner properly finds, similar to the data presented in a spread sheet, “when multiple columns and rows of data are stored together, it is possible to manipulate the table itself in a variety of ways: one can arrange a single column to show in descending or ascending order, and determine if the row itself follows the reorganization or remains unchanged.” Ans. 5. Additionally, we are not persuaded that “[l]ike McRO, in the present Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 14 case it is ‘the incorporation of the particular claimed rules’ that ‘improve [the] existing technological process, unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.’ (MPEP § 2106.0S(a)(II).” See Appeal Br. 10. The claimed invention is not tied to a machine, or improves the computer or its components’ functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those devices function. In another words, contrary to Appellant’s assertion (see above) and 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 collect and store user interaction data for analysis. See Ans. 3–4. This generic computer implementation is not only directed to an abstract idea, but also does not improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”); see also SAP Am. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing McRO). In other words, contrary to Appellant’s assertion (Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 2–5), even assuming, without deciding, that the claimed invention includes “a specific technique for storing and accessing data that provides for faster updates to the data, faster searching of the data, and faster report generation than would be possible using other techniques,” any speed increase or efficiency comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components—not the recited process itself. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 15 (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.”)). Like the claims in FairWarning, the focus of claim 1 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). Simply adding generic hardware and computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application). Considering the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination,” the functions performed by the computer system at each step of the process are purely conventional. Each step of the claimed method, or each of the functions performed by the system claims, does no more than require a generic computer to perform a generic computer function. Thus, the claimed elements have not been shown to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as set forth in the Revised Guidance which references the MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). Inventive Concept Because we determine claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we consider whether claim 1 recites an “inventive concept” sufficient to “transform” the abstract nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The Examiner finds that claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept because Appellant’s disclosure shows the components for performing the Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 16 recited functions include the “the additional limitations of one or more ‘data processing apparatus’ which is/are used to execute the limitations of the claim including stored user interactions, accessing data, and determining conversion information as claimed,” and more specifically, “recites a ‘client device’ at which the campaign information/path report is received/sent, and the interface is updated.” Ans. 4. The Examiner finds “[c]laims 13, 26 recite similar limitations, and also include the use of a system and a data store (claim 13), as well as a non-transitory storage media embodying software operable when executed (claim 26) in order to execute the claimed limitations.” Id. The Examiner explains The courts have found that functions similar to those of Applicants claims of “receiving, processing, and storing data” (See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360. But see Example 4 (Al-4: global positioning system) and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716-17; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Courts have held computer- implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. Id. We agree. The additional elements recited in the claim include the steps of creating a row in the table, string user interaction data in the row, receiving a request to generate a report user interface, and dynamically updating the report based on some selected conversion data, which are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these steps are performed by generic computer components. See, e.g., Fig. Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 17 11, Spec. pp. 136–140 (describing generic computer components performing generic computer functions using generic software modules). Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Contrary to Appellant’s contention that “it is the use of data stored in the self-referential table that provides the faster search capabilities rather than the mere creation of the self-referential table,” and referring to the arguments made with respect to the withdrawn § 103 rejection (Reply Br. 3– 5), these elements form part of the recited abstract ideas and thus are not “additional elements” that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (“USPTO guidance uses the term ‘additional elements’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.” (Emphasis added)). Rather the claim uses well-understood, routine, and conventional data processing activities previously known in the art and they are recited at a high level of generality. The Specification, at pages 136–140 for example, describes using conventional computer components shown in Figure 11, such as a processor, memory, interface, and software modules in a conventional manner. Similarly, as found by the Examiner (see Final Act. 4), relevant court decisions provide examples of such additional elements, which are determined as generic components. Claims 13 and 26 specifically Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 18 include recitations for a computer and memory or a computer storage medium to implement the method, but these components are all used in a manner that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In response to the Examiner’s specific findings (see Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 3–6), Appellant has not provided any rebuttals nor shown these claimed generic computer components which are used to implement the claimed method are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. Here, the claim has not been shown to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Preemption Appellant’s argument that the claims “do not preempt all applications of the alleged abstract idea” because “the claims recite a specific combination of features that provide ‘a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome.’ (MPEP § 2106.07(b)).” Appeal Br. 14–15. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. . . . Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Conclusion For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea and does not recite an “inventive concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and the Appeal 2019-002926 Application 13/070,038 19 remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–6, 9–13, 16–20, 22– 26 101 Eligibility 1, 3–6, 9–13, 16–20, 22– 26 Overall Outcome 1, 3–6, 9–13, 16–20, 22– 26 FINALITY AND RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation