SAS Institute Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 26, 20212020002874 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 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. 15/468,992 03/24/2017 THOMAS DALE ANDERSON 094926-1025308-025320US 4668 110577 7590 07/26/2021 SAS Institute / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER PARK, HYUN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2021 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte THOMAS DALE ANDERSON, JAMES EDWARD DUARTE, MILAD FALAHI, MICHAEL JAMES LEONARD, and DAVID BRUCE ELSHEIMER ____________ Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 4–11, 14–21, 24–30, 32, 34–37, and 39.2 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. Appellant identifies SAS Institute Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 3, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) 1. 2 Final Office Action, dated Feb. 8, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action, dated May 17, 2019 (“Advisory Act.”) (claim 38 was canceled). Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Background The subject matter on appeal “relates generally to a measurement system for diagnostic analysis of a machine.” Specification, filed Mar. 24, 2017 (“Spec.”) ¶ 2. According to the Specification, sensors can be used to monitor “[v]arious characteristics” of machines; “[t]his may enable operators of the machines to detect failures of the machines, safety hazards, etc.” Id. ¶ 3. The Specification explains that machine health is monitored “by analyzing time-series component values that are provided as output from a model based on inputs from one or more sensors coupled to the machine.” Id. ¶ 36. According to the Specification, “analyzing a time-series component associated with the target sensor, as opposed to the actual sensor measurements from the target sensor, can result in earlier identification of potential anomalies.” Id. ¶ 39. Because such time series may span several months, the Specification states, a model may be used to predict values of the time series component and enable “monitoring the health of the machine regardless of the amount of time-series data that is available.” Id. ¶ 40. Of the appealed claims, claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced below: 1. A system comprising: a machine; a plurality of sensors coupled to the machine for detecting characteristics of the machine; a processing device communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors; and Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 3 a memory device on which instructions executable by the processing device are stored for causing the processing device to: generate a plurality of time series corresponding to the plurality of sensors, each time series among the plurality of time series being formed from sensor measurements received from a respective sensor among the plurality of sensors; determine a target sensor to monitor from among the plurality of sensors for predicting whether an anomaly is to occur on the machine; identify, from among the plurality of time series, the time series that was generated using the sensor measurements from the target sensor, wherein the time series is a first set of data points having a first set of magnitude values and spanning a time period; determine a subcomponent of the time series that represents an underlying pattern inherent in the time series by decomposing the time series into at least the subcomponent, the subcomponent being (i) a cycle component reflecting non-periodic fluctuations in the time series, (ii) a trend component reflecting a long-term progression in the time series, or (iii) a seasonal component reflecting seasonality in the time series over a fixed period, wherein the subcomponent is a second set of data points having a second set of magnitude values and spanning the time period, the second set of magnitude values being different from the first set of magnitude values; generate a dataset comprising the second set of magnitude values for the subcomponent of the time series and the sensor measurements from each sensor in the plurality of sensors; generate a model by: applying a modeling technique to the dataset using (i) the sensor measurements from each of the sensors as independent variables for the modelling Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 4 technique, and (ii) the second set of magnitude values from the subcomponent as a dependent variable for the modelling technique, to generate a set of weights with different values representing how the independent variables influence the second set of magnitude values; and generating the model by assigning a respective weight from the set of weights to each sensor among the plurality of sensors indicating how the sensor measurements from the sensor contribute to the second set of magnitude values for the subcomponent of the time series associated with the target sensor, such that the model is configured to receive a plurality of sensor measurements from the plurality of sensors as input and provide a magnitude value for the subcomponent of the time series associated with the target sensor as output; subsequent to generating the model: receive additional sensor measurements from a subset of the plurality of sensors that excludes the target sensor, the additional sensor measurements being different from the sensor measurements; provide the additional sensor measurements as input to the model to obtain as output from the model a predicted magnitude value for the subcomponent of the time series associated with the target sensor; predict that the anomaly is likely to occur on the machine in at a future point in time by determining that (i) the predicted magnitude value of the subcomponent meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold; or (ii) multiple predicted magnitude values for the subcomponent comprise a predetermined pattern that is indicative of the anomaly with the machine; and Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 5 in response to predicting that the anomaly is likely to occur on the machine, adjust an operational setting of the machine or an electronic device that is separate from and associated with the machine, the operational setting being adjusted in a predetermined manner that corresponds to the anomaly to prevent the anomaly from occurring on the machine. Appeal Br. 24–26 (Claims Appendix). B. The Rejection The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 4–11, 14–21, 24–30, 32, 34–37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3; Examiner’s Answer, dated Jan. 17, 2020 (“Ans.”) 3.3 OPINION After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, Appellant does not identify reversible error with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–11, 14–21, 24–30, 32, 34–37, and 39. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of those claims. A. Section 101 An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and 3 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) was withdrawn in view of Appellant’s Amendment and Response to Final Office Action filed May 2, 2019. Advisory Act. Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 6 abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, our inquiry focuses on the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (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 the Court has determined are abstract ideas and, thus, patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20); mathematical formulas (e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts the Court has determined are 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))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 7 nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now 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 turn to the second part of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (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. B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance In January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).4 “All USPTO personnel are, 4 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 8 as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, 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 One”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).5 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] 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. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. C. Analysis We now apply the 2019 Revised Guidance to the claims. Appellant argues the claims together. Appeal Br. 8–22. Therefore, we confine our 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf). 5 We perform this evaluation by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 9 discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative. Claims 4–11, 14– 21, 24–30, 32, 34–37, and 39 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 1. Step 2A, Prong One — The Judicial Exception Under Step 2A, Prong One, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look to whether claim 1 recites a judicial exception, 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). 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54. The Examiner concludes that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 6–8. The Examiner finds, inter alia, that claim 1’s limitations “determine a target sensor to monitor,” “identify, from among the plurality of time series,” and “predict the anomaly . . . predetermined thresholds” are directed to mental processes. Ans. 6. More particularly, the Examiner determines that “determine a target sensor to monitor” is a mental evaluation performed in the human mind to determine a particular target sensor to monitor. Id. The Examiner describes “identify, from among the plurality of times series” as a mental evaluation that involves comparing values. Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 157). Regarding, “predict the anomaly . . . predetermined thresholds,” the Examiner similarly finds the step is a mental evaluation that involves comparing values. Id. Appellant contends the Examiner’s analysis is “vague and conclusory” because it does not explain why the quoted claim limitations set forth a judicial exception. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant asserts “the claim steps are far too complex to practically be performed in the human mind.” Id. at 11. In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends the Examiner’s description of how particular portions of claim 1 fall within the mental process category Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 10 “fail[s] to consider the claims as a whole” and does not rebut Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Here, claim 1 includes the limitations “determine a target sensor to monitor,” “identify, from among the plurality of time series,” and “predict that the anomaly . . . a predetermined threshold.” Appeal Br. 24–25 (Claims Appendix). Appellant fails to adequately explain why these steps the Examiner identifies do not constitute mental processes. Appellant also does not adequately explain what makes the identified steps “too complex” to be mental processes. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant asserts “the large amounts of data typically received from [a plurality of] sensors would quickly overwhelm an ordinary person.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 45). However, claim 1 does not specify any particular sensor that is being measured or any particular data let alone the “amount[] of data” to be compared to a predetermined threshold. Each of the steps the Examiner identifies as a mental process is essentially a selection step that picks a target sensor, a time series, and a value that meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold. As such, these limitations regard collecting and organizing data. The Federal Circuit has concluded that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing the data in memory. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Such activities regard longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and mobile devices and a human could practically carry them out in his or her mind. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 11 when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). Appellant’s comparison (Reply Br. 3–4) of claim 1 to Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018), fails to persuade us that claim 1 does not recite mental processes. In Finjan, the Federal Circuit determined “the [claimed method] employs a new kind of file that enables a computer security system to do things it could not do before.” 879 F.3d at 1305. For this reason, the Federal Circuit characterized the claims as “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security writ large.” Id. The court explained that “software-based innovations can make ‘non-abstract improvements to computer technology’ and be deemed patent-eligible subject matter at step 1.” Id. at 1304. Citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), as an example, the court described such patent-eligible subject matter as doing “more than allow computers to perform familiar tasks with greater speed and efficiency.” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305. In contrast, Appellant’s claim 1 performs tasks the Examiner identifies as those that may be performed in the human mind, namely determining a sensor to monitor and comparing values. Ans. 6. The record supports the Examiner’s finding. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 144 (“In some examples, the processor can receive user input (e.g., via a touchscreen, keyboard, or mouse) indicating which of the multiple sensors is to be the target sensor.”), 171 (“In some examples, the processor can compare the predicted magnitude value to a threshold value associated with an anomaly. The threshold value can be a predetermined threshold value (e.g., provided as input by a user . . .).”). Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 12 Comparing Appellant’s claim 1 to Example 37 in the 2019 Revised Guidance also directs us to the conclusion that claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Like claim 3 in Example 37, Appellant’s limitations––“determine a target sensor to monitor,” “identify, from among the plurality of time series,” and “predict that the anomaly . . . a predetermined threshold”–– cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the generic memory device, processing device, sensor, and machine. Appeal Br. 24–25 (Claims Appendix). Appellant’s limitations do not require action by a processor accessing computer memory to assess a condition of the computer memory as in Example 37’s claim 2. Nor does Appellant’s claim 1 require any particular characteristics of the machine to require action by a sensor. In view of the foregoing, a number of claim 1’s limitations reasonably involve mental processes, including observation, evaluation, and judgment. The 2019 Revised Guidance expressly recognizes mental processes as constituting an abstract idea. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong One. 2. Step 2A, Prong Two — Integration into a Practical Application Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we consider whether claim 1 as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The October 2019 Update explains that “[a]n important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology.” October 2019 Update, 12. Appellant contends even if the claims recite abstract ideas, “the alleged abstract ideas are integrated into various practical applications,” Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 13 specifically, “the practical application of preventing machine anomalies.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant cites for support various paragraphs in the Specification concerning “real-time monitoring of machine health,” “preemptively predicting machine anomalies,” and “preventing machine anomalies” along with example parameters such as “a firing rate of the furnace, a feed rate of a material into or through the furnace . . . a humidity, a wind direction, or any combination of these.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 6, 36–39, 135–137, 146, 174, 177); see Reply Br. 5 (directing us to the Specification’s paragraphs 39, 40, 174 and 177 for elaboration on technical improvements). Appellant argues that the functioning of “the machine” is improved by preventing the machine from failing, and the final claim step of “adjust[ing] an operational setting of the machine . . . in a predetermined matter that corresponds to the anomaly to prevent the anomaly from occurring on the machine” integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal Br. 16–17. As the October 2019 Update provides, to determine whether the claimed invention provides a technological improvement, we consider whether Appellant’s Specification “provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” October 2019 Update, 12. If the Specification sets forth an improvement in technology, we then evaluate claim 1 “to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” Id. The passages of the Specification that Appellant directs us to for the alleged technical improvement generally discuss aspects of Appellant’s invention, such as searching for anomalous events such as “spikes, dips, patterns,” the length of time that a time series may span being up to several months or years, and possible operations performed by a processor including Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 14 shutting down the machine for a period of time. Spec. ¶¶ 39, 40, 174, 177. Even assuming these portions of the Specification provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement, we find that claim 1 does not reflect the improvement as Appellant asserts, namely an improvement to “the functioning of a machine by preventing the machine from failing.” Appeal Br. 16. As noted above, the Specification indicates a time series may span a significant amount of time; the Specification also describes using a model to predict values to “overcome this issue.” Spec. ¶¶ 39, 40. Claim 1 recites, for example, “in response to predicting that the anomaly is likely to occur on the machine, adjust an operational setting of the machine . . . the operational setting being adjusted in a predetermined manner that corresponds to the anomaly to prevent the anomaly from occurring on the machine.” Claim 1, however, does not recite that the times series necessary to detect anomalous events is reduced. Nor does claim 1 recite the anomaly would cause the machine to fail. In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that the claim as a whole is not directed to an abstract idea because it is “directed to improving machine performance by predicting and preventing anomalies thereon.” Reply Br. 2, 3. Appellant also asserts that the claimed method is specific and concrete because the claim recites “more than a dozen steps describing a concrete process for predicting and preventing machine anomalies,” and each of the steps “includes specific details as to how to implement that step.” Id. at 4 (attempting to distinguish Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). However, the claim does not recite steps that are outside the realm of what the human mind can perform because the claim is not tied to any particular machine or environment. Nor does it recite Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 15 “multiple” values with which to predict and prevent an anomaly from occurring on the recited “machine.” As noted above, selecting the sensor to monitor and the threshold value used for comparison may be manual operations. Spec. ¶¶ 144, 171. Thus, the high level of generality the claim recites, including the lack of a specific environment or machine on which the claimed system operates, reduces the claim to an abstract idea, namely, a mental process. See Yu v. Apple, Inc., 2020-1760, slip op. at 5–6 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2021) (claimed “improved digital camera” found directed to the abstract idea of using one picture to enhance the other that is carried out in a generic environment where only conventional camera components recited); Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258–59 (claims directed to the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellphones lacked details regarding how to accomplish the recited functions and found drawn to the abstract idea itself). As a result, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that simply because the claim recites a certain number of steps, the claims are significantly different than the claims in Affinity Labs. Reply Br. 4. In sum, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the invention of claim 1 provides an improvement that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. 3. Step 2B — Inventive Concept Because claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate the additional elements of the claim, individually and in combination, to determine whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 16 The Examiner concludes, and we agree, that the claims do not contain any additional elements, individual or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Ans. 13. When considered individually, each of the limitations that describe the instructions on the memory device relate to sensor measurements. Routine data-gathering steps, however, are “insufficient . . . to constitute an inventive concept.” Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Claim 1 contains the additional elements of “a machine,” “a plurality of sensors coupled to the machine,” “a processing device communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors,” and a response to the sensor measurements that “adjust[s] an operational setting of the machine.” Each of these limitations is recited at a high level of generality that merely provides a generic environment for carrying out the abstract idea without any particular end use. Ans. 10–13. The Specification does not indicate that these components are anything other than generic components performing generic functions. To the contrary, the Specification demonstrates the conventional nature of these elements. Spec. ¶¶ 36 (“Examples of the machine can include an electronic device, an electronic system, a mechanical device, a mechanical system, or any other type of physical system or combination of physical systems.”), 60 (“[T]he network devices may include sensors such as water sensors, power sensors, electrical current sensors, chemical sensors, optical sensors, pressure sensors, geographic or position sensors (e.g., GPS), velocity sensors, acceleration sensors, flow rate sensors, among others.”), 135, 136, 177 (“The operation [to avoid the anomaly] can include any number and combination of sub-operations. Examples of the operation can include transmitting one or more commands to the machine (or another Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 17 electronic device) to control or otherwise operate the machine (or the other electronic device.”)). The combination with a generic computer processor does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent- eligible subject matter.”). Similarly, generic features of a machine or device are insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent- eligible invention. See Yu, 2020-1760, slip op. at 9–10 (claimed hardware configuration of sensors itself found not to produce the asserted advance of enhancement of one image by another); Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262–63 (use of generic features of cellular telephones for implementing underlying idea insufficient “inventive concept” to transform abstract idea of out-of- region delivery of regional broadcasting). In summary, we have carefully considered Appellant’s arguments but are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–11, 14–21, 24–30, 32, 34–37, and 39. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–11, 14–21, 24–30, 32, 34–37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed. Appeal 2020-002874 Application 15/468,992 18 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4–11, 14– 21, 24–30, 32, 34–37, 39 101 Eligibility 1, 4–11, 14– 21, 24–30, 32, 34–37, 39 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation