Conduent Business Services, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 13, 2020

14560293 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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.
14/560,293 12/04/2014 Kunal Suri 20140499US01-
CNDT3173US01
1691
144578 7590 02/13/2020
FAY SHARPE LLP / CONDUENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115
EXAMINER
DICKERSON, TIPHANY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2020 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):
Conduent.PatentDocketing@conduent.com
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KUNAL SURI and ADRIAN C. MOS
____________

Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–23, 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 word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Conduent Business Services, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.

Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s Specification is directed to “a computer-implemented
business process monitoring system,” which “monitors the human-centric
business processes involving human activities along with integration-centric
BPs [(business processes)] involving SOAs [(Service Oriented
Architectures)].” See Spec. ¶¶ 7, 9.
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows;
1. A computer-implemented business process
monitoring system comprising:
a network which links a main computing device to a first
remote computing device, a second remote computing device
and a third remote computing device, the first remote
computing device providing access to a business process
modeling suite which implements a business process
description by running a business process, the second remote
computing device providing access to a computer-implemented
service oriented architecture including services that execute the
business process; the third remote computing device providing
access to a human task monitoring and contextual analysis
component (HTMCA) which monitors manual activities;
the main computing device comprising:
memory which stores a set of concept probes, each
of the concept probes being communicatively connected
to a monitoring component of the business process
management suite and also being communicatively
connected to the monitoring component of the service
oriented architecture which monitors the set of services
of the service oriented architecture and also being
communicatively connected to the HTMCA which
monitors manual activities associated with business
activity, each connection of each concept probe being
based on at least one mapping to the respective
monitoring component of the business process
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

3
management suite and the service oriented architecture
and the HTMCA, each mapping adapted to determine (a)
a set of business concepts, (b) a set of executable services
for each business concept, (c) a set of activities for each
of a business process implemented by the business
process management suite, with each activity
corresponding to a business concept in the set of business
concepts, (d) a set of activities and corresponding
business concepts for every business process
implemented by the business process management suite,
and (e) a set of manual tasks called on by the BPM
infrastructure for execution of the business process
activity and each concept probe corresponding to a
manual task;
the concept probe matching a business concept to
the at least one activity and the at least one manual task
based on the respective at least on mapping, the concept
probe acquiring activity information from the monitoring
component of the business process management suite
about the respective at least one activity, and acquiring
manual task information from the monitoring component
of the HTMCA that is called by the at least one activity,
the concept probe aggregating the activity information
and the manual task information into monitoring
information matching the business concept, and
outputting the monitoring information; and
a processor which implements that set of concept
probes,
wherein in response to receiving the manual task
information from the BPM infrastructure, and wherein in
response to receiving activity information acquired from the
associated second probe, the each concept probe correlates the
manual task information with the activity; and,
wherein the each concept probe generates monitoring
information based on the correlated data.
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

4
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 2–5.

ANALYSIS
“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue
of law that we review de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 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)(l)(iv). Appellant does not separately argue the claims. See
Appeal Br. 10–15. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that “the claimed invention describes the
abstract concept of monitoring business processes and manual tasks”
wherein “monitoring is accomplished using a set of probes (i.e., surveys,
queries, etc.) that are stored in an organized fashion that tracks and
correlates automated and manual activities to an associated business
concept.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds the recited process in both
independent claims 1 and 7 are similar to the concepts held to be abstract in
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner also finds that the claims do not
“recite elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception” because:
The claims recite a network that links a main computing device
to a first remote computing device, a second remote computing
device and a third remote computing device, the first remote
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

5
computing device. Additionally, a processor and a memory are
cited in the claims. In each case, the elements are recited in a
manner that is well-understood, routine and conventional. The
devices are general-purpose devices to perform generic
computer functions, i.e., accessing memory, receiving and
storing data, processing to transform some data, and outputting
data. Additionally, the claims recite that the first remote
computer provides access to a business process monitoring
suite, the second remote computing device provides access to a
computer-implemented service oriented architecture including
services that execute the business process and the third remote
computer provides access to a human task monitoring and
contextual analysis component (HTMCA).
Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner points to paragraphs 4, 7, 34,
and 35 of Appellant’s Specification to support the above determination with
respect to “conventional computing elements” in combination with “other
well-known technological business practices such as using business process
management suite software.” Final Act. 4–5.
After the mailing of the Final Action and the filing of the Appeal
Brief in this case, in January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance
on the application of § 101. See USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).
Under that guidance (“Step 2A”), the office first looks to whether the claim
recites:
(1) Prong One: 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); and
(2) Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT
EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. Rev. 08. 2017, Jan. 2018)).
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

6
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then (pursuant to
the Guidance “Step 2B”) look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. We adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent
with our analysis herein. We add the following primarily for emphasis and
clarification with respect to the Guidance.
I. Step 2A
Appellant argues, unlike the claims in FairWarning, “the claims are
directed to a specialized computer monitoring system architected in such a
way to perform a specialized task” or “a claimed architecture—that enables
a computer system to improve execution of the operation of ‘collecting’—is
distinct from the step or act of collecting itself.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant
specifically asserts the claims, which are “directed to the function of the
computer system, and how the mapping is performed across the various
components” are more similar to the claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal Br. 10–
12.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error.

Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

7
Prong One
Pursuant to the Guidance, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1
recites a method for human task monitoring and analyzing manual activities
which “describes the abstract concept of monitoring business processes and
manual tasks.” Final Act. 3. These functions relate to “commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations)” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions),” which are considered “certain methods of organizing human
activity.” See Spec. ¶¶ 21–23; see also Guidance, Section III (A)(l) (Prong
One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception), 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. Specifically, claim 1 recites steps of “stores a set of concept
probes, each of the concept probes being communicatively connected to a
monitoring component of the business process management suite” for
determining sets of business concepts, service, activities, and manual tasks,
“matching a business concept to the at least one activity,” and correlating
manual tasks information with activities. See Appeal Br. 17–19 (Claim
App.). These limitations are classified by the Guidance as steps of “sales
activities or behaviors[,] business relations[,] . . . and following rules or
instructions,” which are “fundamental economic principles or practices,”
“commercial or legal interactions,” and “managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Pursuant to the Guidance, such limitations are the abstract concept of
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity.” Id.
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

8
As for monitoring manual activities, mapping the concept probes to
monitoring components, matching a business concept to an activity, and
correlating the manual task information with the activity, these limitations
recite mental processes. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing
“[m]ental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as one of the “enumerated
groupings of abstract ideas” (footnote omitted)). The written description
describes these limitations similar to the function of thinking and comparing
in the human mind, see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 10, 25, 26, 33–39, 43–49, but does not
limit the claimed functions to a particular mathematical function or
algorithm. These limitations are thus so broadly recited that they encompass
people using functions that they can solve in their minds or using pen and
paper to monitor manual tasks related to specific business processes. See
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (determining that a claim limitation “is so broadly worded” that the
limitation “encompasses literally any method” for performing the limitation,
including “even logical reasoning that can be performed entirely in the
human mind”); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Prong Two
Appellant contends that the claimed invention is described in the
Specification as “a set of concept probes are communicatively connected to
monitoring components of an associated business process management suite
(BPMS) and associated service oriented architecture (SOA), with unique
mappings to match activities and services to business concepts,” which
allows for monitoring business processes and services using concept probes
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

9
that automatically correlate information. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also
argues “the invention sets out to improve the infrastructure of the BPMS
monitoring system (computer system), which improves the performance of
the BPMS monitoring system,” and further improves “the functioning of the
computer itself, and/or the technological process.” Appeal Br. 12–13.
Appellant asserts “the claims improve a technological process by providing
a quick, meaningful output instantly, which analogously rendered the claims
patent eligible in Trading Techs.2” Appeal Br. 14.
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error pursuant to
Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance. Appellant has not shown the claim
includes additional elements that improve the underlying computer or other
technology. Appellant explains:
The claimed system integrates a set of concept probes across a
network of computing devices by including probes at a main
computing device. Each probe is connected to a monitoring
component (i.e., the claimed HTMCA) on a remote computing
device that monitors manual activities associated with a
business activity, and other monitoring components (BPMS,
SOA and HTMCA) of different computing devices. The probe
matches the business concept (called on by a BPMS), services
(called on by the SOA), and manual tasks (called on by the
HTMCA) for execution of a business process; aggregates and
correlates the information; and generates an alert (cl. 5, 7) if the
information indicates a violation.
Reply Br. 5–6. Although Appellant’s alleged improvement to technology is
described as “the software and hardware configuration, whereby each
concept probe communicates to the BPMS, SOA, HTMCA on different
computing devices,” the additional functions merely involve comparing and

2 Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CGQ, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir.
January 18, 2017), slip op. at p. 8.).
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

10
matching concept probes with monitoring components of business activities.
Reply Br. 6. In fact, paragraph 33 of Appellant’s Specification describes the
relational aspect of different components and their functions at a high level
that are performed by a different computerized system. See Spec. ¶¶ 33–34.
However, “merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or
efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise
abstract idea.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792
F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (Moreover, Appellant’s purportedly
improved abstract concept, using “human task monitoring and contextual
analysis component (HTMCA)” (Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 6), is still an
abstract concept under the Guidance. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “a claim for a new
abstract idea is still an abstract idea”) (emphasis omitted). That is,
monitoring and recognizing manual activities by connecting concept probes
and mapping them to monitoring components of the business process, even
performed on a computer, are parts of the recited abstract idea, as discussed
above. See Ans. 4.
As the argued elements are part of the abstract idea, they are not
additional elements that integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55 (“[E]valuate integration into
a practical application by: (a) Identifying whether there are any additional
elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)”).
Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Because we determine the “claim recites a judicial exception and fails to
integrate the exception into a practical application,” we proceed with
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

11
“further analysis pursuant to the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO
Step 2B).” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.
II. Step 2B
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in determining “the claimed
method is simply implementing an abstract idea using general-purpose
devices to perform generic computer functions.” Appeal Br. 14; see also
Final Act. 4. We disagree. The claimed “network” and “remote computing
device[s],” as well as the recited “human task monitoring and contextual
analysis component (HTMCA) which monitors manual activities,”
“memory,” and “processor” are part of the recited judicial exception itself,
as discussed above. See Ans. 3–4; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56
(“[E]valuate the additional elements individually and in combination” in step
2B.); Guidance fn. 24 (“USPTO guidance uses the term ‘additional
elements’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited
in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.”) (emphasis omitted).
Regarding the claimed “HTMCA” component and the related
network, computing devices, memory and processor, we agree with the
Examiner that the limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
See Final Act. 4; Ans. 4; see also Figs. 1A, 1B, 5; Spec. ¶¶ 21, 26, 29–31,
33–43, 58–60; Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“But what petitioner characterizes as
specific hardware . . . is purely functional and generic. 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.”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Claims reciting, inter alia,
sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

12
system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting
offers to potential customers found to merely recite “well-understood,
routine conventional activit[ies].”). Similarly, the other elements recited in
claim 1, such as linking computing devices, storing/mapping/matching
concept probes, and correlating the manual task information, do not
“improve functioning of computer itself or provide a technical improvement
outside of the advantages that SOA are known to provide” and thus,
“[p]roviding the aggregated information relates data organization rather than
a technical improvement.” See Final Act. 5; Ans. 4.
As such, Appellant’s claims can be distinguished from patent-eligible
claims such as those in McRO that improved how the physical display
operated to produce better quality images. The claimed invention here
merely uses generic computing components to monitor manual services
related to a business process. This generic computer implementation is not
only directed to a mental process, but also does not improve a specific
process like a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP Am.,
Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing
McRO) (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting
and analyzing information . . . is abstract as an ancillary part of such
collection and analysis”) (quotations omitted).
Other Considerations
We have reviewed all the arguments Appellant has submitted
concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us that stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal Br. 10–15. We find that our analysis above
substantially covers the substance of all the arguments which have been
made. But, for purposes of completeness, we will add the following.
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

13
To the extent Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in adequately
supporting this determination by not providing evidence, or considering the
claims in their entirety, to justify identifying the specific limitations as
reciting an abstract idea, or “whether the additional elements represent well-
understood, routine, conventional activity,” under the new Guidance (see
Reply Br. 3–6), we are unpersuaded. In this regard, there is no requirement
that Examiners must provide evidentiary support in every case before a
conclusion can be made that a claim is directed to an abstract idea or
whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. See, e.g.,
MPEP § 2106.07 (a)(III) (2018) (“The courts consider the determination of
whether a claim is eligible (which involves identifying whether an exception
such as an abstract idea is being claimed) to be a question of law. Thus, the
court does not require ‘evidence’ that a claimed concept is a judicial
exception, and generally decides the legal conclusion of eligibility without
resolving any factual issues.” (Citations omitted.)) Moreover, the Federal
Circuit made clear in Berkheimer that “not every § 101 determination
contains genuine disputes over the underlying facts material to the § 101
inquiry.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In
fact, the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer did not require evidentiary support
for independent claim 1 because “[t]he limitations [of claim 1] amount to no
more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with
conventional computer components.” Id. at 1370.
All that is required of the USPTO to meet its prima facie burden of
production is that the Examiner set forth the statutory basis of the rejection
and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulated and
informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132.
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

14
As the statute itself instructs, the Examiner must “notify the applicant,”
“stating the reasons for such rejection,” “together with such information and
references as may be useful in judging the propriety of continuing the
prosecution of his application.” 35 U.S.C. § 132; see also In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (declining “to impose a heightened burden
on examiners beyond the notice requirement of § 132”). Here, as we found
above, the Examiner has made these findings as required by the statute.
Specifically, in rejecting the pending claims under § 101, the Examiner
notified Appellant that the claims recite steps that describe “the abstract
concept of monitoring business processes and manual tasks,” a method of
organizing human activity or mental processes, and that the claims do not
include additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea. See Final Act 2–5. Thus, we find that a prima facie case was
established by the Examiner.
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim
1 is “directed to” an abstract idea and does not recite an “inventive concept.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and the
remaining claims which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–23 101 Eligibility 1–23
Appeal 2019-003076
Application 14/560,293

15
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