AutoAlert, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2020

14271200 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2020)

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.
14/271,200 05/06/2014 Jeffrey Stuart Cotton AUTLT.059C1 2922
20995 7590 04/13/2020
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
KARMIS, ALISSA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY STUART COTTON and BOYD HODSON WARNER
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200
Technology Center 3600
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 An oral hearing was held on March 19, 2020.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AutoAlert,
LLC, and states that various “[i]nvestment funds affiliated with HGGC, LLC
. . . own a majority interest in AutoAlert, LLC.” Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “timely alert[ing] dealers and/or
manufacturers or related financial companies regarding opportunities to sell
new products to customers by identifying circumstances under which a
customer can enter a new financial arrangement with terms favorable to the
customer.” Spec. ¶ 11. Claims 1–5 are pending. Appeal. Br. 58–61. Claim
1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below for reference (some
formatting and bracketed step lettering added):
1. A method of evaluating the effect of planned, future or
hypothetical incentive programs on financial arrangements that
could be offered to automotive customers, the method
comprising the steps of:
[a] in an enterprise portfolio analyst system comprising a
database storing automotive customer data, receiving, for a set of
potential customers having current vehicles, customer data
corresponding to current financial terms of current agreements of
one or more potential customers and current vehicle information
for each of the potential customers in the set; and
[b] in the enterprise portfolio analyst system, determining
vehicle terms, financial terms, and payment amounts for a set of
potential agreements, wherein each potential agreement in the set
of potential agreements is associated with a specific potential
customer in the set of potential customers and is determined by:
[b-i] querying a database to find a replacement
vehicle with a make and model that is similar to a make and
model of the current vehicle of the specific potential customer;
[b-ii] retrieving replacement vehicle information
and new financial terms associated with the replacement vehicle;
[b-iii] calculating a new payment based on the
current financial terms for the current vehicle, the new financial
terms, the current vehicle information, and the replacement
vehicle information;
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

3
[c] in the enterprise portfolio analyst system, identifying a
subset of selected agreements from the set of potential
agreements, wherein a potential agreement is identified as a
selected agreement by:
[c-i] determining if the new payment associated
with the potential agreement satisfies a deal parameter based on
a comparison between the new payment and the current payment
for the current vehicle associated with the potential agreement;
and
[c-ii] including the potential agreement in the subset
of selected agreements if the new payment satisfies the deal
parameter;
[d] in the enterprise portfolio analyst system, using the
subset of selected agreements to designate the specific potential
customers associated with the selected agreements as candidates
for marketing outreach;
[e] using a client system for limited access to the enterprise
portfolio analyst system through a firewall using encryption to
create a secure connection after using authentication to confirm
that the client system is authorized to access the information on
a limited basis;
[f] using a control interface in the client system that is
configured to customize searches within the database storing
automotive customer data, while securely withholding names of
the specific individual customers from users of the client system,
the control interface including interactive controls for selecting
or entering at least the following categories: make, model, and
year of the customers’ current vehicles;
[g] using the client system to create a first customer pool
by:
[g-i] through the client system, receiving first
hypothetical incentive data comprising one or more incentives;
[g-ii] using the secure connection to input the first
hypothetical incentive data into the enterprise portfolio analyst
system;
[g-iii] using the customer data in the enterprise
portfolio analyst system and the first hypothetical incentive data
from the client system to create the new financial terms
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

4
associated with the replacement vehicle and thereby create a first
potential customer pool of candidates for marketing outreach;
[h] using the client system to create a second customer
pool by:
[h-i] through the client system, receiving second
hypothetical incentive data comprising one or more incentives;
[h-ii] using the secure connection to input the
second hypothetical incentive data into the enterprise portfolio
analyst system;
[h-iii] using the customer data in the enterprise
portfolio analyst system and the second hypothetical incentive
data from the client system to create the new financial terms
associated with the replacement vehicle and thereby create a
second potential customer pool of candidates for marketing
outreach;
[i] generating first and second summary reports that
include the total number of customers in the first and second
potential customer pools, divided by segments corresponding to
at least one of the following: the current make and model of the
customers’ vehicles; and the model year of the customers’
vehicles;
[j] transmitting at least part of the first and second
summary reports from a web application server in the enterprise
portfolio analyst system to a user computer in the client system
over an encrypted Internet connection;
[k] operating a firewall between the user computer and the
enterprise portfolio analyst system to protect the privacy of the
one or more customers; and
[l] using the first and second summary reports to compare
the first customer pool and the second customer pool, to thereby
determine the effect of the first versus the second hypothetical
incentive data, without revealing the names of specific individual
customers to users of the client system.
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

5
The Examiner’s Rejection3
Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being patent
ineligible. Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under 35
U.S.C. § 101, because “the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more.” Final Act. 7; see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (describing the two-step framework “for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts”).
In 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published
revised guidance on the application of § 101 (“Guidance”).4 See 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Notice”); see also USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject
Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October Update”). “All
USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the obviousness rejection of claims 1–5. See
Ans. 3.
4 Responsive to the Guidance, Appellant filed a Supplemental Brief on April
5, 2019 (“Supp. Br.”).
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

6
to follow the guidance.” Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October
Update at 1.
Under the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”). 5
Notice, 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, does the Office then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent
consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for
emphasis and clarification with respect to the Guidance.

5 This evaluation is performed 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 Notice - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

7
A. Step 2A, Prong One
Pursuant to the Guidance, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1
recites an abstract concept. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 15, 16. Claim 1 recites a
method of “evaluating . . . incentive programs” to determine various
incentives (such as a manufacturer rebate) to offer to particular automotive
customers. Claim 1, preamble; Final Act. 8 (“In other words, the claim
recites collecting and organizing of customer, vehicle and financial data and
analysis of the collected information using various criteria to identify
potential agreement options for a customer.”); Appeal Br. 40 (“Claim 1 is
directed to improvements to another technical field, namely the use of data
extraction techniques in generating leads for automotive sales and leases.”
(emphasis omitted)); see also Spec. ¶¶ 9, 241. The claim recites the abstract
idea of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal
interactions. See Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 2; In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481
(CCPA 1979) (using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of
visits by a business representative to a client is not patent eligible); OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“At
best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic
concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic-
computer functions.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the abstract idea of determining a price, using
organizational and product group hierarchies”); Credit Acceptance Corp. v.
Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“the abstract idea of
‘processing an application for financing a purchase’”); Customedia Techs.,
LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018-2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *2 (Fed.
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

8
Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) (“the abstract idea of using a computer to deliver targeted
advertising to a user”).
Such determination accords with our review pursuant to the Guidance.
Claim 1 recites limitations [a], [b] (including [b-i], [b-ii], and [b-iii]), and [c]
(including [c-i] and [c-ii]). These steps, relating to identifying customers,
vehicle data, and agreements covering customers and vehicles, are
recitations of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people,” and “commercial or legal interactions,” including
“agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations,” and
“following rules or instructions.” Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also
October Update at 5, 6; Spec. ¶ 2. Thus, these limitations recite the abstract
concept of “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity.” Notice, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
Claim 1 further recites limitations [d], [f], [g] (including [g-i], [g-ii],
and [g-iii]), [h] (including [h-i], [h-ii], and [h-iii]), [i], [j], and [l]. These
steps, relating to organizing potential customers by vehicle and hypothetical
incentives for “marketing outreach,” are recitations of “managing personal
behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” and “commercial
or legal interactions,” including “agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations,” and “following rules or instructions.” Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52;
see also October Update at 5, 6; Spec. ¶ 64.
Appellant argues claim 1 is not patent ineligible under Step 2A, Prong
One of the Guidance, because “[t]he claims are not directed to any one of
[the enumerated] broad concepts” of judicial exceptions, and the claims
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

9
“integrate additional building blocks.” Supp. Br. 8, 9. These arguments,
however, do not address the analysis required under Prong One of the
Guidance, which looks to whether specific limitations recite an enumerated
abstract idea. See October Update at 10. Thus, Appellant does not show the
above analysis is in error.
Accordingly, we conclude independent claim 1 recites a judicial
exception under Prong One of the Guidance. See Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54;
see also October Update at 2, 3.

B. Step 2A, Prong Two
Appellant argues the claims are “not ‘directed to’ any abstract idea,”
and “the claims contain significantly more than any abstract idea.” Appeal
Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Particularly, Appellant contends the “claimed
methods provide unique solutions to problems that specifically arise in the
realm of computer networks” which “arise[] in the technological realm, as
applied in particular to data usage and access in the automotive industry.”
Id. at 14; see also Appeal Br. 14–25; Supp. Br. 13, 15 (“Appellant has
solved the problem of sharing key features through an automobile data
interface that maintains the integrity of automobile personnel by preventing
data security leaks.”). Appellant further contends “the present claims are
directed to an even more ‘particular manner of summarizing and presenting
information in electronic devices’ than the claim in Core Wireless.” Reply
Br. 5 (citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The features asserted by
Appellant, such as the functionality accomplished by the broad recitation of
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

10
the interface (i.e., the claimed method steps), are part of the abstract idea
discussed above, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. See Appeal Br. 19; Ans. 8. Further, present claim 1 is unlike
the claimed user interface in Core Wireless, as Appellant has not shown the
claimed interface is improved. See Ans. 6; see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The claims at issue
here do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying
information.”). Here, the claims do not change the underlying or other
technology, rather the claimed techniques merely organize information
(potential customers, offers, etc.) for marketing purposes, yielding at most
business or advertising improvements. See Ans. 11 (“Tailoring a search or
query to certain criteria is not actually improving the computer. The
computer is still operating in its normal expected way.”); see also Ans. 4–8;
October Update at 13; Spec. ¶¶ 9, 10, 74, 201, 237.
Claim 1 further includes limitations relating to security and privacy,
such as the recited “securely withholding names” and limitations [e] and [k].
As correctly determined by the Examiner, these additional elements use
ordinary computer functionality to provide business or financial
improvements. See Ans. 14; Spec. ¶ 248. Any benefits accruing to the
claim do not provide a technological improvement (as opposed to a financial
benefit), because providing security and privacy—as broadly recited—is
similar to “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different
words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for
decades, if not centuries.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839
F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016); cf. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice
Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

11
claims, which provided for anonymity while shopping, were not patent
eligible); Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882,
889 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (The disputed patent “does not claim to have invented
new networking hardware or software. Nor does it claim to have invented
HTTP header fields, user identifiers, encryption techniques, or any other
improvement in the network technology underlying its claims.”).
Accordingly, the claimed additional elements “merely use[] a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” or “do[] no more than
generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment.” Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see Customedia Techs., LLC v.
Dish Network Corp., No. 2018-2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
Mar. 6, 2020) (“We have held that it is not enough, however, to merely
improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer
merely as a tool.”).
Furthermore, although claim 1 recites over 750 words, we determine
the mere length of the claim is insufficient to establish patent eligibility. Cf.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (alterations in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437
U.S. 584, 593 (1978)) (“In holding that the process was patent ineligible, we
rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing] a principle in some specific
fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of
§ 101.’”). Similarly, any questions on preemption in the instant case have
been resolved by the analysis herein and by the Examiner. See Two-Way
Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (“[W]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent
ineligible subject matter under the Alice framework, as they are in this case,
preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.”).
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

12
Accordingly, we determine claim 1 does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As
the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into
a practical application, the claim is “directed to the . . . judicial exception.”
Id. at 54.

C. Step 2B
Appellant argues the Examiner “has provided no evidence to support a
conclusion that the control interface of Appellant’s claims is ‘conventional’
or that other aspects of Appellant’s claims are ‘well-understood, routine, and
conventional.’” Reply Br. 5; see also Supp. Br. 17.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The recited “control
interface,” recited at a high level of generality,6 is part of the recited abstract
idea discussed above. That is, the interface does not comprise additional
elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception. See Ans. 6–8; Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55–56;
see also id. at 55 n.24; Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No.
2018-2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) (“We have

6 Separately, we note the claim does not recite a graphical (or similar
specific requirements for the) user interface. In any event, we agree with the
Examiner that the claimed interface comprises “conventional computer
functions” as the “claim with a user selecting or entering data (i.e., a basic
search query with criteria) does not recite more than setting, displaying and
selecting data.” Ans. 10, 11; Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d
1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he purported advance is a process of
gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying
the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for
performing those functions.”) (quotations omitted); see, e.g, Spec. ¶¶ 78,
187.
Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

13
also held that improving a user’s experience while using a computer
application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to
an improvement in computer functionality.”).
We agree with the Examiner that the additional elements recited by
independent claim 1—individually and in combination—are well
understood, routine, and conventional. See Final Act. 10, 11; Ans. 17, 18;
Spec. ¶¶ 6, 82, 83, 92, 168–180; 190; 196–200, 245–248, 253; Alice, 573
U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications
controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic
calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method
claims.”); Bridge & Post, 778 F. App’x at 884 (“The concept of tailoring
advertisements based on user data did not originate with these patents. The
practice dates back at least to local radio and television advertisements,
which played only for users located in specific cities and were published in-
between otherwise national programs.”). Thus, the claim limitations,
individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in determining independent
claim 1 is patent ineligible. Appellant does not present additional
substantive arguments on the remaining claims. See Appeal Br. 56.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s eligibility rejection of claims 1–5.

Appeal 2018-006099
Application 14/271,200

14
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–5 101 Eligibility 1–5

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED