Alexander Kremen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2021002235 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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. 15/482,713 04/08/2017 Alexander Michael Kremen none 4921 7590 01/14/2022 Alexander Michael Kremen and Michelle Esteban 24 Los Amigos Court Orinda, CA 94563 EXAMINER GRANT, MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2022 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEXANDER MICHAEL KREMEN and MICHELLE ESTEBAN ____________ Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, 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, 3-12, and 14-22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 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. Appellant identifies Food Friend, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “provid[ing] techniques for food management.” Spec. ¶ 14. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: [(a)] receiving, at a graphical user interface of a computing device, a request to create a grocery list using a first recipe stored on the computing device and a second recipe stored on the computing device, the first recipe specifying a first amount of a first ingredient and the second recipe specifying a second amount of the first ingredient, the first recipe specifying the first ingredient in a first manner and the second recipe specifying the first ingredient in a second manner, the first amount being specified in a first unit of measure and the second amount being specified in a second unit of measure that is different than the first unit of measure, the graphical user interface associated with a food management system; [(b)] responsive to receiving the request to create the grocery list, accessing, by the computing device, an ingredient database stored and managed by the food management system, the ingredient database specifying ingredients and a set of characteristics defining each ingredient, the ingredient database including: a plurality of ingredient entries, wherein each ingredient entry of the plurality of ingredient entries includes an ingredient, a unique object identifier to identify the respective ingredient, and a plurality of characteristics associated with the respective ingredient, wherein the plurality of characteristics includes: a density characteristic having a density value associated with a density of the respective ingredient; Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 3 an item characteristic having an item weight value or an item volume value associated with a singular item of the respective ingredient; a parts adjustment characteristic having a parts adjustment value associated with a part of the respective ingredient; and a qualifier characteristic having a qualifier value associated with a qualifier of the respective ingredient; [(c)] using the ingredient database, identifying, by the computing device, a first set of characteristics associated with the first ingredient, the first set of characteristics including a first density value, a first item weight value or a first item volume value, a first parts adjustment value, and a first qualifier value; [(d)] automatically calculating, by the computing device, a third amount of the first ingredient based on the first set of characteristics, the third amount being a combined amount of the first ingredient from the first recipe and the second recipe, the third amount being specified in a third unit of measure, wherein automatically calculating comprises: converting the first amount in the first unit of measure to a first converted amount in the third unit of measure using at least one of the first density value, the first item weight value, or the first item volume value; adjusting the first converted amount to a first adjusted amount based on the first manner of specifying the first ingredient and based on at least one of the first parts adjustment value or the first qualifier value; converting the second amount in the second unit of measure to a second converted amount in the third unit of measure using at least one of the first density value, the first item weight value, or the first item volume value; adjusting the second converted amount to a second adjusted amount based on the second manner of specifying the first ingredient and based on at least one of the first parts adjustment value or the first qualifier value; and combining the first converted amount and the second converted amount to produce the third amount; Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 4 [(e)] generating, by the computing device, the grocery list that includes amounts for ingredients in the first recipe and the second recipe including the third amount of the first ingredient specified in the third unit of measure; and [(f)] causing display, by the computing device, of the grocery list in the graphical user interface. Appeal Br. 15-16 (Claims App.). REJECTION2 Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. ANALYSIS Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 9-14. 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). Principles of Law 35 U.S.C. § 101 An invention is patent eligible if it is a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). 2 In the Advisory Action mailed on December 3, 2019, the Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 5 In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice, “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 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,” such as an abstract idea. Id. According to Supreme Court precedent, concepts determined to be abstract ideas include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (id. at 219-20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as 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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (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). Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 6 USPTO Guidance The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has set out agency policy with respect to its interpretation of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions concerning the requirements for subject matter eligibility. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 51 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”); see also October 2019 Update (responding to comments on the 2019 Guidance solicited from the public);3 Berkheimer Memo.4 “The guidance sets out agency policy with respect to the USPTO’s interpretation of the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. [§ ]101 in view of decisions by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. However, the “guidance . . . does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the USPTO” and “[r]ejections will continue to be based upon the substantive law.” Id. Because the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINATION PROCEDURE §§ 2104-06, Ninth Edition, Rev. 10.2019 (June 2020) (“MPEP”) now incorporates the 2019 Guidance, the October 2019 Update, and the Berkheimer Memo, this opinion refers to the MPEP instead of those materials. 3 October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ peg_oct_2019_update.pdf. 4 Memorandum from Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, to the Patent Examining Corps, “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (April 19, 2018), available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo- berkheimer-20180419.PDF. Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 7 The MPEP acknowledges that “[t]he Alice/Mayo two-part test is the only test that should be used to evaluate the eligibility of claims under examination.” MPEP § 2106(I). It treats the first step (i.e., whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception) as a two-prong inquiry. Id. § 2106.04(II). “Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?” Id. § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). For determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the MPEP defines enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, distilled from precedent. Id. § 2106.04(a); see also id. § 2106.04(a)(2) (defining abstract idea groupings). If the claim recites a judicial exception, then the claim requires further analysis at Prong Two. Id. § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” Id. § 2106.04(II)(A)(2); see also id. § 2106.04(d). 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 additional elements, individually or in combination, provide an inventive concept. See MPEP §§ 2106(III), 2106.05. “An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’” Id. § 2106.05(I) (quoting Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Among the considerations in determining whether the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the exception itself, we look to whether they add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or simply append well-understood, Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 8 routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(II). Rejection The Examiner determined that the claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being. Final Act. 4 (addressing the independent claims), 7 (addressing the dependent claims). The Examiner further determined that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. at 7-8. Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Guidance, Step 2A) We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 9-14; see also Reply Br. 3-5. 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 any improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Systems and Methods of Food Management,” and describes, in the Background section, that “[m]eal planning is often a tedious task, especially in households with several Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 9 people. In some cases, the act of planning meals (e.g., researching recipes, grocery shopping, etc.) can take hours.” Spec. ¶ 3. The claimed invention ostensibly is intended to address this need by allowing a grocery list “to be generated based on multiple recipes[,] such that ingredients for the recipes can be intelligently combined and grouped by ingredient group within the grocery list.” Id. ¶ 44; see also Appeal Br. 11- 12 (describing that conventional systems generate a grocery list for a set of recipes by “manually listing each ingredient specified in each recipe”; whereas, the claimed invention uses an ingredient database, a computing device, and a graphical user interface to “quickly combine ingredients originally specified in different units of measure and generate and display a grocery list”); Spec. ¶ 85 (describing that in some embodiments, a first recipe includes a first amount of an ingredient in a first unit of measure and a second recipe including a second amount of the ingredient in a second unit of measure, and the claimed invention generates a grocery list specifying a combined amount of the ingredient). Consistent with this description, claim 1 recites a method comprising the following steps: (1) receiving a request to create a grocery list using a first recipe and a second recipe, i.e., receiving. . . a request to create a grocery list using a first recipe . . . and a second recipe . . . , the first recipe specifying a first amount of a first ingredient and the second recipe specifying a second amount of the first ingredient, the first recipe specifying the first ingredient in a first manner and the second recipe specifying the first ingredient in a second manner, the first amount being specified in a first unit of measure and the second amount being specified in a second unit of measure that is different than the first unit of measure (limitation (a)); (2) accessing an ingredient database, i.e., Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 10 responsive to receiving the request to create the grocery list, accessing. . . an ingredient database . . . , the ingredient database specifying ingredients and a set of characteristics defining each ingredient, the ingredient database including: a plurality of ingredient entries, wherein each ingredient entry of the plurality of ingredient entries includes an ingredient, a unique object identifier to identify the respective ingredient, and a plurality of characteristics associated with the respective ingredient, wherein the plurality of characteristics includes: a density characteristic having a density value associated with a density of the respective ingredient; an item characteristic having an item weight value or an item volume value associated with a singular item of the respective ingredient; a parts adjustment characteristic having a parts adjustment value associated with a part of the respective ingredient; and a qualifier characteristic having a qualifier value associated with a qualifier of the respective ingredient (limitation (b)); (3) identifying information associated with the first ingredient, i.e., using the ingredient database, identifying. . . a first set of characteristics associated with the first ingredient, the first set of characteristics including a first density value, a first item weight value or a first item volume value, a first parts adjustment value, and a first qualifier value (limitation (c)); (4) calculating a combined amount of the first ingredient from the first recipe and the second recipe, i.e., . . . calculating. . . a third amount of the first ingredient based on the first set of characteristics, the third amount being a combined amount of the first ingredient from the first recipe and the second recipe, the third amount being specified in a third unit of measure, wherein automatically calculating comprises: Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 11 converting the first amount in the first unit of measure to a first converted amount in the third unit of measure using at least one of the first density value, the first item weight value, or the first item volume value; adjusting the first converted amount to a first adjusted amount based on the first manner of specifying the first ingredient and based on at least one of the first parts adjustment value or the first qualifier value; converting the second amount in the second unit of measure to a second converted amount in the third unit of measure using at least one of the first density value, the first item weight value, or the first item volume value; adjusting the second converted amount to a second adjusted amount based on the second manner of specifying the first ingredient and based on at least one of the first parts adjustment value or the first qualifier value; and combining the first converted amount and the second converted amount to produce the third amount (limitation (d)); (5) generating the grocery list, i.e., “generating . . . the grocery list that includes amounts for ingredients in the first recipe and the second recipe including the third amount of the first ingredient specified in the third unit of measure” (limitation (e)); and (6) “causing display . . . of the grocery list” (limitation (f)). These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a method for generating a grocery list from a first recipe and a second recipe. We agree with the Examiner that these limitations recite mental processes, which can be performed by a human mentally, i.e., an abstract idea. See Final Act. 4-6; MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, limitations (a) through (c) relate to collecting information, and Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 12 limitations (d) through (f) involve analyzing the collected information, and displaying certain results of the analysis. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit expulsion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas”); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (determining that the steps of obtaining credit card transactions from a database, making a map of credit card numbers, and using the map to determine if other transactions are valid can be performed in the human mind). In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts for the first time that the claimed invention “would be impossible without the computing technology described in the claims” to store ingredient entries for “any number of existing ingredients” because the information “surely cannot be stored in the human mind and/or as a simple paper list.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant further contends that even if the information could be stored as suggested, using the information to generate a grocery list would not be nearly as efficient, would be prone to errors, and cumbersome. Id. As an initial matter, although claim 1 encompasses any number of ingredients, it only requires a plurality of ingredient entries, such as two. We are not persuaded that the claimed invention could not be performed mentally by a human using pen and paper. By implementing the mental process using computers, the claimed invention simply performs better what would be done manually. See Bancorp Servs, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 13 Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One, we next consider whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.04(II)(A), 2106.04(d). Here, claim 1 additionally recites: “a graphical user interface”; “a computing device”; “a food management system”; and that the step of calculating, by the computing device, is performed “automatically.” However, the Specification describes these elements, and the interaction therebetween, at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components. See Spec. ¶¶ 16, 19-23, 91-110; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[W]holly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional features that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself.” (quotation omitted)). Attempting to analogize claim 1 to the claims at issue in Enfish, Appellant argues that claim 1’s recitation of an ingredient database is an “additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning and operation of a computer and an improvement to grocery list generation.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that claim 1, like the claims at issue in Enfish is directed to concepts of data organized into a database with ingredient entries for ingredients, where each ingredient entry includes a plurality of characteristics associated with the respective ingredient to provide flexibility in how ingredients in recipes may be specified while providing the ability to efficiently consolidate ingredients regardless of the manner in which they are specified. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Spec. ¶ 37, Figs. 23-29, 32-34). Appellant asserts that the ingredient database “provides the ability to flexibly perform efficient Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 14 operations related to ingredient conversion and combination based on a variety of ways that an ingredient can be described.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Spec. ¶ 38, Figs. 23-29, 32-34). However, we find no technological improvement in claim 1 analogous to the improvement in computer technology obtained in Enfish. In Enfish, the Federal Circuit concluded that the “plain focus of the claims” was “on an improvement to computer functionality itself.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. There, the claims “[were] not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data, but instead [were] specifically directed to a self- referential table for a computer database.” Id. at 1337. The court found that the self-referential table recited in the claims was “a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory.” Id. at 1339; see also Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]o be directed to a patent- eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336-39)). Here, claim 1 focuses on a set of characteristics defining each ingredient specified in the claimed ingredient database. According to Appellant, the data arranged in the ingredient database provide the ability to flexibly perform efficient operations related to ingredient conversion and combination. See Appeal Br. 12. Yet, claim 1 does not recite any improvement to the way the ingredient database stores or organizes information analogous to the self-referential table in Enfish. Instead, the benefits of claim 1 flow from an improvement to the type of information stored by a database. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 15 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A]n improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality.”). We are not persuaded that claim 1 recites a technological improvement, such as an improvement to computer functionality or to database functionality. Instead, claim 1 uses a database in its ordinary capacity to perform the task of generating a grocery list, which is a mental process, i.e., an abstract idea. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336 (distinguishing an improvement in computer functionality from the performance of “economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”). Appellant contends that claim 1 “effects a transformation of ingredients in a first recipe and a second recipe to ingredients in a grocery list, where the grocery list includes combined amounts for ingredients specified in each recipe.” Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 4. Put simply, Appellant argues that claim 1 manipulates one type of data (i.e., ingredients listed in recipes) into another type of data (i.e., a grocery list combining ingredients and amounts from recipes). The “transformation and reduction of an article to a different state or thing is [a] clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010) (quotation omitted). However, the manipulation of data has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “[t]he mere manipulation or reorganization of data. . . does not satisfy the transformation prong [of the machine-or-transformation test]”). There is no indication in the Specification that the operations recited in claim 1 require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 16 computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any asserted inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Contrary to Appellant’s suggestion (Appeal Br. 11-12), claim 1 does not recite a particular machine or otherwise impart patent eligibility to the claim merely because it recites a generic “food management system that stores and manages an ingredient database.” Appeal Br. 11; see also id. (“Without the ingredient database stored and managed by the food management system, the computing device is simply unable to generate grocery lists with combined ingredient amounts for display within a graphical user interface of an application.” (citing Spec. Figs. 23-29, 32-34)). However, requiring an abstract idea to be performed in a particular technological environment does not save the claims from abstraction. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (observing that a limitation requiring part of the claimed method to be performed on a scanner merely limited the abstract idea to a particular technological environment); see also MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(b). Appellant’s remaining arguments fail for similar reasons. For example, Appellant disputes that “claim 1 . . . merely link[s] the use of the alleged judicial exception to some technological environment in a way designed to monopolize the exception.” Appeal Br. 12. In particular, Appellant argues that the claims use a specific element - an ingredient database - to “transform” ingredients in recipes to line items in a grocery list, which transforms the abstract idea into a particular application. See id.; see also Reply Br. 4. Yet, as described above, we are not persuaded that the Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 17 claimed database is other than a generic database operating in its ordinary capacity. Although the recitation of an ingredient database may well result in an improvement to a method in which a grocery list is generated, this improvement is to a process that is itself the abstract idea. Appellant argues that claim 1 is similar to Example 37, claim 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.5 Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 4-5. In particular, Appellant contends that claim 1, like Example 37’s claim 1, is directed to an improved user interface. Appeal Br. 13. Specifically, claim 1 purportedly targets an “improved manner of generating and displaying a grocery list with combined amounts for ingredients specified in multiple recipes, thus resulting in an improved and more efficient user interface for electronic devices.” Id. Yet, Appellant’s claim 1 recites using a generic user interface in its ordinary capacity to receive data (limitation (a)) and display data (limitation (f)). In contrast, claim 1 of Example 37 involves integrating a mental process into a practical application by automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the graphical user interface (“GUI”) closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. Eligibility Examples 2. By automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage, the claimed GUI results in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Id. at 2-3. We find no comparable improvement to a user interface in Appellant’s claimed invention. At most, claim 1 recites particular data to be collected and analyzed (e.g., a set of characteristics associated with each ingredient), and 5 USPTO’s “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas” (Jan. 7, 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf (hereinafter “Eligibility Examples”). Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 18 requires the user interface to display certain results related to this collection and analysis (i.e., a grocery list). However, the claimed solution does not improve the functionality of the graphical user interface itself. “As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353, 1355). We also are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s argument that claim 1 “cannot be deemed as an attempt to monopolize any category of abstract idea[s].” Appeal Br. 12. “[P]reemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, [but] the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites mental processes, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea are no more than generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (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 Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 19 “inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. MPEP § 2106.05(I). As described above, the only additional elements recited in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea are a “a graphical user interface”; “a computing device”; “a food management system”; and that the step of calculating, by the computing device, is performed “automatically.” However, the Specification describes these elements, and the interaction therebetween, at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components. See Spec. ¶¶ 16, 19-23, 91-110; see also MPEP § 2106.05(d) (explaining that in many instances, the specification for the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional). Appellant does not argue, and we are not persuaded, that claim 1 recites additional subject matter that is not well-understood, routine, conventional, or that the Examiner otherwise erred in the application of Step 2B. Because Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claim 1 and claims 3-12 and 14-22, which fall with claim 1. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed. Appeal 2021-002235 Application 15/482,713 20 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-12, 14-22 101 Eligibility 1, 3-12, 14-22 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