Woo CHOI

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2022

2022000924 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022)

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. 16/500,366 10/02/2019 Woo CHOI PII1-PAU12NS 1684 97066 7590 02/16/2022 Innovation Capital Law Group, LLP 19800 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92612 EXAMINER CIRNU, ALEXANDRU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2022 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com processing@icaplaw.com vlin@icaplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WOO CHOI ____________ Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed August 26, 2021) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 24, 2021) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 21, 2021). Appellant identifies the inventor, Woo Choi, as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 4). Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The Specification states, “[t]he present invention relates to a method of managing points by using a computing device, and more particularly, to a solution for managing points based on a point commission limit” (Spec. 1:4-6). Claims 1, 19, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by one or more processors of a computing device, the computer program performs procedures for managing points by a point management server, and the procedures include: [(a)] receiving, by a network unit, from at least one of a merchant server or a user terminal, user information; [(b)] receiving, by the network unit, from the merchant server, point commission limit information and payment information, wherein the payment information includes a payment value not including a first point payment value, the first point payment value being at least a portion of a product value paid by at least one of an affiliate’s points or a merchants’ [sic] own points; [(c)] receiving, by the network unit, from each of one or more point servers, total point information including at least one of the point information based on the user information, an amount of points held for each of the point information and a point commission rate for each of the point information; [(d)] determining, by the processor, usage priority of each of the point information based on at least one of the point commission rate for each of the point information or information of the point server for each of the point information; [(e)] determining, by the processor, an amount of point commission of each point information based on the amount of points held and the point commission rate for each point information; Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 3 [(f)] calculating, by the processor, a total amount of point commission of each point information; [(g)] calculating, by the processor, a second point payment value comprising an amount of use points for each of the point information that is at least a part of the total point information, based on the usage priority and a comparison result between the total amount of point commission of each point information and the point commission limit information; and [(h)] transmitting, by the network unit, to each of the one or more point servers, a payment request based on the second point payment value comprising the amount of use points for each of the point information. REJECTION Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the pending claims as a group (Appeal Br. 13-21). We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “[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.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 4 laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ - i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217-18 (alteration in original). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published revised guidance on January 7, 2019, for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).2 That guidance revised the USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Id. at 50. 2 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates the revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 5 The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, 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. Id. at 54-55. Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id. If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only then, is the claim patent eligible. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Here, in rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determined that independent claim 1 recites a commercial interaction, i.e., “advertising activities/behaviors and business relations/sales activities,” which is a method of organizing human activity and, therefore, Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 6 an abstract idea; “the abstract concept of a mathematical concept,” i.e., “mathematical calculations/relationships”; and “the abstract concept of a mental concept,” i.e., a “mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper” (Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner also determined that the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application; that claim 1 does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself; and that the remaining claims are patent ineligible for substantially the same reasons (id. at 4-5). Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 28-32). The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “METHOD OF MANAGING POINTS,” and discloses, in the Background section, that “[a]s the promotion for customers through the use and saving of . . . points became active by business operators, the number of customers joining points increased Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 7 rapidly” as did the kind of points held by these customers (Spec. 1:9-11). The Specification describes that “[i]n order for customers to use points for each business operator, there is a need to manage individual points” and, accordingly, a “demand for a method of effectively using points within a limit acceptable by customers who want to use points and each of the business operators” (id. at 1:12-17). The claimed invention is ostensibly intended to meet this demand. The Specification, thus, discloses that, in an exemplary embodiment, a processor receives user information, payment information, and a point commission limit from a merchant server through a network unit (Spec. 15:3-4). The Specification describes that the user information includes information, e.g., a name, address, ID, regarding a user who wishes to use points to purchase a good from a merchant (id. at 15:14-21); that the payment information includes information regarding the particular good, including the product name and product value information (id. at 16:12-19);3 and that the point commission limit represents a limit on the amount of commission to be paid to a point company, which, in the exemplary embodiment, is obtained by multiplying the product value by a commission rate set by the merchant (id. at 19:6-11; see also id. at 59:16-24). 3 The Specification describes that, in an exemplary embodiment, if there are no “merchant’s own point[s]” or “merchant’s affiliate’s point[s],” the product value may be the price of a product sold by the merchant; otherwise, the product value is obtained by subtracting “at least one of the merchant’s own point[s] and the merchant’s affiliate’s point[s] from the price of the product” (Spec. 17:3-9). Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 8 In accordance with the disclosed method, the processor further receives point information from one or more merchant point servers, including the number of points held by the user at the server and the point commission rate (Spec. 22:10-24), and the processor determines a usage priority for each point information (id. at 23:11-13); for example, the processor may prioritize the point information in commission rate order from lowest to highest (id. at 24:6-13). The processor also determines an amount of point commission for each point information based on the number of points held and the point commission rate, and determines a total amount of point commission by summing the determined amounts of point commission (id. at 24:23-25:20). If the total amount of point commission is equal to or less than the point commission limit, the processor may determine that the entirety of the point information is usable; otherwise, the processor identifies at least a part of the point information as usable point information (id. at 24:23-26:2; see also id. at 59:25-60:25). The Specification describes that, in one example, the processor receives user information for user A, a product value of 10,000 won,4 and a point commission limit of 1,000 won; the processor also receives point information from each of merchant point servers “a” (2,000 points held and a 3% commission rate), “b” (15,000 points held and a 5% commission rate), and “c” (6,000 points held and a 10% commission rate) (Spec. 26:8-17). The processor determines the usage priority of the point information, i.e., a, b, c, based on their respective commission rates, and determines an amount of point commission for each point information by multiplying the number 4 The won is the national currency of South Korea. Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 9 of points held by the point commission rate; a total amount of point commission is then calculated by summing the determined values, i.e., the processor determines an amount of point commission of 60 won for a (i.e., 2000 *3%); 750 won for b; and 600 won for c, and a total amount of point commission of 1410 won (id. at 26:17-24). In this example the total amount of point commission, i.e., 1410 won, exceeds the 1,000 won point commission limit; therefore, the processor adjusts the total amount of point commission (so that the usable point information is equal to or less than the point commission limit) by subtracting at least a part of the amount of point commission for point information c (having the lowest usage priority) from the total amount of point commission (id. at 26:24-27:4). The processor, thus, determines, an amount of point commission of 60 won for point information a, an amount of point commission of 750 won for point information b, and an amount of point commission of 190 won for point information c as the usable point information (id. at 27:8-11). The processor next calculates the amount of use points for each of the usable point information, i.e., in the present example, 2,000 won for point information a; 15,000 won for point information b; and 1900 won (190*100/10) for point information c, and calculates the total amount of use points, i.e., 18,900 won, by summing the amount of use points for each of the usable point information (Spec. 29:5-12). In this example, the total amount of use points of 18,900 won exceeds the product value of 10,000 won; the processor, thus, adjusts the total amount of use points by subtracting at least a part (here, 8,900 won) of the amount of use points for the usable point information having the low priority (subtracting in order of point information c, b, and a) from the total amount of use points (here, Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 10 18,900 won) (id. at 29:12-19). For example, the processor may subtract the amount of points for point information c, i.e., 1,900 won, and the amount of points for point information b of 7,000 won, which are at least part of the amounts of use points for the usable point information having the low usage priorities (id. at 29:19-23). The processor then transmits a payment request based on the use point amounts to the point servers, here, point servers a and b (id. at 31:23-25; see also id. at 60:26-61:25). Consistent with this disclosure, claim 1 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by one or more processors, performs procedures for managing points by a point management server, including: (1) receiving user information from at least one of a merchant server and a user terminal, and point commission limit information and payment information, including a payment value that excludes the product value paid by the merchant’s own points or those of its affiliate, from the merchant server, i.e., receiving, by a network unit, from at least one of a merchant server or a user terminal, user information; [and] receiving, by the network unit, from the merchant server, point commission limit information and payment information, wherein the payment information includes a payment value not including a first point payment value, the first point payment value being at least a portion of a product value paid by at least one of an affiliate’s points or a merchants’ [sic] own points (steps (a) and (b)); (2) receiving, from each of one or more point servers, total point information (including the number of points held by the user and the point commission rate), and determining a usage priority for each point information, i.e., receiving, by the network unit, from each of one or more point servers, total point information including at least one of the Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 11 point information based on the user information, an amount of points held for each of the point information and a point commission rate for each of the point information; [and] determining, by the processor, usage priority of each of the point information based on at least one of the point commission rate for each of the point information or information of the point server for each of the point information (steps (c) and (d)); and (3) determining an amount of point commission for each point information, and a total amount of point commission, i.e., “determining, by the processor, an amount of point commission of each point information based on the amount of points held and the point commission rate for each point information” and “calculating, by the processor, a total amount of point commission of each point information” (steps (e) and (f)); and (4) calculating a point payment value comprising an amount of use points for each point information, and transmitting a payment request based on the use point amount to each of the one or more point servers, i.e., calculating, by the processor, a second point payment value comprising an amount of use points for each of the point information that is at least a part of the total point information, based on the usage priority and a comparison result between the total amount of point commission of each point information and the point commission limit information; and transmitting, by the network unit, to each of the one or more point servers, a payment request based on the second point payment value comprising the amount of use points for each of the point information (steps (g) and (h)). These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite (1) collecting information, i.e., user information from at least one of a merchant server or a user terminal, point commission limit information and payment information from the merchant server, and total Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 12 point information from one of more point servers; (2) analyzing the information, i.e., determining usage priority and an amount of point commission of each point information, and calculating a total amount of point commission and an amount of use points for each point information; and (3) reporting the results of the collection and analysis, i.e., transmitting a payment request based on the amount of use points to each of the one or more point servers. As such, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a “mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper,” and, therefore, an abstract idea (Final Act. 3, 4).5 See also 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that method steps that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, are unpatentable mental processes). Appellant reproduces, and generally describes Figure 2 of the Specification; and Appellant summarily asserts that “the present invention relates to a special purpose device for the point management system, which is not an abstract idea” (Appeal Br. 14). Yet, Appellant provides no further explanation or technical reasoning to support Appellant’s position. And we 5 We also agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a commercial interaction, which is a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that claim 1 also recites subject matter, e.g., “calculating. . . a total amount of point commission of each point information,” that falls within the “Mathematical concept[s]” grouping of abstract ideas (Final Act. 3). Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 13 find no indication, whether in the figure itself or in the written disclosure, that the servers and user terminal depicted in Figure 2 are, individually or in combination, anything other than generic computer components arranged in a networked system (see, e.g., Spec. 11:20-24 (“The server . . . may be a digital device, such as a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a desktop computer, a web pad, and a mobile phone, which is mounted with a processor, includes a memory, and has calculation ability.”)). We also are not persuaded that claim 1 includes additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (Appeal Br. 14-19). The 2019 Revised Guidance references MPEP, Ninth Edition (rev. Jan 2018) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/ mpep/old/mpep_E9R08-2017.htm) § 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e) in non-exhaustively listing considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated a recited judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. In particular, the Guidance describes that an additional element may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if, inter alia, the additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id. Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 14 Appellant argues here that claim 1 is patent eligible because the claimed invention “provides technical improvements for easily implementing a point management system in the field of computer networks in order to provide efficient point management”; Appellant maintains that by incorporating point servers, which are not affiliated with each other, into a single point management system, the claimed point management server may receive total point information from each of one or more point servers; determine the usage priority of each of the point information; calculate a second point payment value (which is payable with non-affiliate points that are not the affiliate’s points nor the merchant’s own points); and transmit, to each of the one or more point servers, a payment request based on the second point payment value (Appeal Br. 14-17). Yet, we are not persuaded that this is a technological improvement, as opposed to an improvement to the abstract idea of managing points, which is not enough for patent eligibility. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[P]atent law does not protect such claims[, i.e., claims to an asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”). This is particularly so, where, as here, we find no indication in the Specification that the operations recited in claim 1 require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components as tools operating in their ordinary capacity. The Specification discloses, as mentioned above, that there is “a demand for a method of effectively using points within a limit acceptable by customers who want to use points and each of the business operators” (Spec. Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 15 1:11-17), and describes that this demand is one to which the claimed invention was conceived to respond (see id. at 1:21-22 (explaining that “[t]he present disclosure is conceived in response to the background art, and has been made in an effort to provide a method of managing points”). It, thus, clearly appears from the Specification that the focus of the claimed invention is on addressing a business objective (i.e., effectively using points within a limit acceptable by customers who want to use points and each of the business operators), and not on any claimed means for accomplishing that goal that improves technology. Appellant argues that in the case where a point management system for using non-affiliated points is “built without the point management server of the present disclosure,” it is necessary to establish network connections between all of the point servers “for sending and receiving payment information, in addition to partnership agreements for the use of points (typically between the administrators of the point server),” and asserts that, as point servers are added to the point management system, these networking operations grow exponentially (Appeal Br. 15-16). Appellant argues that the claimed invention, by comparison, allows the point management system to be “expanded in a very simple manner” (id. at 16). And Appellant presents a diagram, reproduced below, to demonstrate its position. Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 16 Appellant’s diagram compares the claimed system configuration to prior art systems when a new point server is added to the point management system Appellant, thus, explains that rather than requiring, when a point server is newly added to the system, that a separate network connection be established between the new point server and each of the other point servers, it is only necessary, with the claimed invention, to establish a connection between the new point server and the point management server (id. at 15-17). Appellant maintains that the claimed invention represents a technological improvement, i.e., that “[t]hanks to the point management server implementing the . . . unique information processing method of the present disclosure, point servers are free to participate in/leave from the point management system” “and the point management system . . . [has] huge flexibility in the configuration of the point servers” (Appeal Br. 17). But, that argument is not persuasive of Examiner error at least because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 does not include any language that defines the configuration of the point servers or otherwise describes the network connections (or the lack thereof) between and/or Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 17 among the claimed “one or more point servers” to effect the asserted flexibility in the configuration of the point servers. We also are not persuaded, for much the same reason, by Appellant’s arguments regarding the advantages that the claimed invention allegedly provides in the construction and operation of a point management system inasmuch as we find nothing in claim 1 that limits or otherwise defines the amount of data that the point management server stores, receives, and/or manages (see Appeal Br. 18 (arguing that the point management server does not need to store/manage all point information of all users, but instead may receive relatively little data from each point server and process it quickly in order to calculate the second point payment)). Finally, Appellant misapprehends the controlling precedent to the extent Appellant maintains that claim 1 is patent eligible because it presents no risk of preemption (Appeal Br. 18-19). Although the Supreme Court has described “the concern that drives [the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent-eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption,” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility. “The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216). “[P]reemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, [but] the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id. Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 18 We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a mental process, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, i.e., “one or more processors of a computing device”; “a point management server”; “a network unit”; “a merchant server”; and “a user terminal,” are no more than generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea (see, e.g., Spec. 9:20-10:8, 10:24-11:10, 11:19-26, 14:6-9). As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[W]holly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B) Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 19 Appellant argues that “[t]he point management server and operations thereof disclosed in the claims of the present disclosure are not well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept is present” (Appeal Br. 20). Yet, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive at least because “the relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention [itself] is unconventional or non-routine.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Instead, the question under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework (i.e., step 2B) is whether the claim includes additional elements, i.e., elements other than the abstract idea itself, that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself” (emphasis added)). The Examiner determined here, and we agree, that the only claim elements recited in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea are “one or more processors of a computing device”; “a point management server”; “a network unit”; “a merchant server”; and “a user terminal,” i.e., generic computer components (Final Act. 4) - a determination amply supported by, and fully consistent with the Specification (see, e.g., Spec. 9:20-10:8, 10:24-11:10, 11:19-26, 14:6-9). Appellant cannot reasonably maintain that there is insufficient factual support for the Examiner’s determination that the operation of the processor Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 20 is well-understood, routine, or conventional, where, as here, there is nothing in the Specification to indicate that the operations recited in claim 1 require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions, e.g., receiving, processing, and outputting information. Indeed, the Federal Circuit, in accordance with Alice, has “repeatedly recognized the absence of a genuine dispute as to eligibility” where claims have been defended as involving an inventive concept based “merely on the idea of using existing computers or the Internet to carry out conventional processes, with no alteration of computer functionality.” Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (citations omitted); see also BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1291 (“BSG Tech does not argue that other, non-abstract features of the claimed inventions, alone or in combination, are not well- understood, routine and conventional database structures and activities. Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that the asserted claims lack an inventive concept.”). We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-20, which fall with claim 1. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 101 Eligibility 1-20 Appeal 2022-000924 Application 16/500,366 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