International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2022

2021000235 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 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. 15/182,972 06/15/2016 Charles E. Beller AUS920160131US1 4566 45725 7590 03/21/2022 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC 445 Crestover Circle Richardson, TX 75080 EXAMINER PELLETT, DANIEL T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2121 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2022 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 CHARLES E. BELLER, PAUL J. CHASE JR., RICHARD L. DARDEN, MICHAEL DRZEWUCKI, and EDWARD G. KATZ Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 Technology Center 2100 BEFORE JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims App. 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 International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “[a]nswer scoring based on a combination of specificity and informativity metrics.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, in a computing device configured with instructions executing on a processor of the computing device to implement a question answering system, for answer scoring based on a combined informativity and specificity score, the method comprising: generating, by the question answering system executing on the processor of the computing device and configured with a question answering machine learning model and a natural language processing pipeline, a set of candidate answers for a user-generated input question, wherein the natural language processing pipeline comprises a question and topic analysis stage, a hypothesis generation stage, a hypothesis and evidence scoring stage, an answer ranking stage, and a supporting evidence collection stage, wherein the hypothesis and evidence scoring phase uses a plurality of scoring algorithms, each performing a separate type of analysis of the user-generated input question and content of a corpus of documents, wherein the plurality of scoring algorithms include an informativity and specificity scorer; for each given candidate answer in the set of candidate answers, determining, by an informativity and specificity scorer of the question answering system, a specificity value of each term in the given candidate answer based on a position of the term in a taxonomy data structure and determining a specificity score of the given candidate answer based on the specificity value of the terms in the given candidate answer; for each given candidate answer in the set of candidate answers, determining, by the informativity and specificity scorer, an informativity value of each term in the given candidate answer using corpus statistics and determining an informativity score of the given candidate answer based on the informativity value of the terms in the given candidate answer; Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 3 determining, by the plurality of scoring algorithms of the question answering system, a confidence score for each candidate answer within the set of candidate answers based on its specificity score and informativity score; ranking, by the answer ranking stage of the question answering system, the set of candidate answers according to confidence score to form a ranked set of candidate answers; and returning, by the question answering system, the ranked set of candidate answers. REJECTION Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Final Act. 2-9. PRINCIPLES OF LAW An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 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). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 5 to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under that 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 interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look 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 Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 6 (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum. OPINION The Judicial Exception Rejection of Claims 1-20 The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Final Act. 2-9; see also Ans. 12-20. The Examiner determines the claims recite the abstract idea of mental processes. Final Act. 3-6. The Examiner further determines the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Final Act. 6- 8. The Examiner further determines the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Final Act. 8-9. Appellant presents the following principal arguments: “[I]ndependent claim l is directed to a computerized question answering system and not a mental process.” Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2. “It is not reasonable to interpret the functioning of a question answering system to be a mental process.” Appeal Br. 7. “A human mind cannot perform the recited steps using a machine learning model, because a machine learning model is exclusively associated with a computer implementation.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also Appeal Br. 17 (“[C]laim 1 recites a set of steps for a particular candidate answer scoring- and ranking-based processing sequence and set of rules, executed by a question answering system.”) Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 7 “[T]he specification details why the specificity score would improve the question answering system by increasing specificity scores for answers that are more specific and why the informativity score would improve the question answering system by ensuring they do not repeat information provided in the question.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec ¶¶ 19-21); see also Reply Br. 2-3. “[T]he specification describes why specificity improves answer ranking. It follows that the claims are directed to an improvement to the computer science discipline of artificial intelligence or, more particularly, question answering.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 37-38). “[A] human mind could not as a practical matter determine a specificity score of every term in every possible candidate answer for any input question based on position in an ontology data structure.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331-33 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); see also Appeal Br. 12-16, Reply Br. 3-5. The claims recite a specific implementation of a question answering system, which implements the alleged judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The invention is directed to problems that are specific to a computer, rather than a human, answering questions using machine learning, using a plurality of scoring algorithms to determine a confidence score for candidate answers. Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 5-7. [C]laim 1 recites additional elements that apply or use the alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the alleged judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 8 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize an alleged judicial exception. Appeal Br. 17. “[C]laim l recites additional elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to a technological field (computerized question answering).” Appeal Br. 17. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We do not see any error in the Examiner’s determination that the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Are the claims patent-eligible? Step 1 Claim 1 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 11 recites a computer program product, which falls within the “manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 20 recites a computing device, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, we must determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test. See id. Step 2A, Prong One Independent claim 1 recites the following steps: [i] generating, by the question answering system executing on the processor of the computing device and configured with a Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 9 question answering machine learning model and a natural language processing pipeline, a set of candidate answers for a user-generated input question, wherein the natural language processing pipeline comprises a question and topic analysis stage, a hypothesis generation stage, a hypothesis and evidence scoring stage, an answer ranking stage, and a supporting evidence collection stage, wherein the hypothesis and evidence scoring phase uses a plurality of scoring algorithms, each performing a separate type of analysis of the user-generated input question and content of a corpus of documents, wherein the plurality of scoring algorithms include an informativity and specificity scorer; [ii] for each given candidate answer in the set of candidate answers, determining, by an informativity and specificity scorer of the question answering system, a specificity value of each term in the given candidate answer based on a position of the term in a taxonomy data structure and determining a specificity score of the given candidate answer based on the specificity value of the terms in the given candidate answer; [iii] for each given candidate answer in the set of candidate answers, determining, by the informativity and specificity scorer, an informativity value of each term in the given candidate answer using corpus statistics and determining an informativity score of the given candidate answer based on the informativity value of the terms in the given candidate answer; [iv] determining, by the plurality of scoring algorithms of the question answering system, a confidence score for each candidate answer within the set of candidate answers based on its specificity score and informativity score; [v] ranking, by the answer ranking stage of the question answering system, the set of candidate answers according to confidence score to form a ranked set of candidate answers; and [vi] returning, by the question answering system, the ranked set of candidate answers. The overall process recited by steps [i]-[v] describes sorting (ranking) a set of candidate answers, which includes “concepts performed in the Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 10 human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, steps [i]-[v] recite the abstract concept of “[m]ental processes.” Id. In step [i], generating . . . a set of candidate answers for a user- generated input question . . . wherein the hypothesis and evidence scoring phase uses a plurality of scoring algorithms, each performing a separate type of analysis of the user-generated input question and content of a corpus of documents, wherein the plurality of scoring algorithms include an informativity and specificity scorer; is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human with knowledge of the input question and the corpus of documents (observation) would consider all information available to arrive at a set of candidate answers (evaluation, judgment, and opinion). The informativity and specificity scorers are also abstract concepts because they provide further details of the evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Further, in steps [ii]-[iv], for each given candidate answer in the set of candidate answers, determining . . . a specificity value of each term in the given candidate answer based on a position of the term in a taxonomy data structure and determining a specificity score of the given candidate answer based on the specificity value of the terms in the given candidate answer; for each given candidate answer in the set of candidate answers, determining . . . an informativity value of each term in the given candidate answer using corpus statistics and determining an informativity score of the given candidate answer based on the informativity value of the terms in the given candidate answer; determining, by the plurality of scoring algorithms of the question answering system, a confidence score for each Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 11 candidate answer within the set of candidate answers based on its specificity score and informativity score; are a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion because they provide further details of the evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The additional details of the mental processes do not make these mental processes less abstract. Further, in step [v], “ranking, by the answer ranking stage of the question answering system, the set of candidate answers according to confidence score to form a ranked set of candidate answers,” is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Thus, we determine claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, we also determine claims 11 and 20 recite a judicial exception. Step 2A, Prong Two Because claims 1, 11, and 20 recite a judicial exception, we next determine if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite abstract concepts, claim 1 further recites a “computing device,” “processor,” “question answering system,” “question answering machine learning model,” “natural language processing pipeline,” “question and topic analysis stage,” “hypothesis generation stage,” “hypothesis and evidence scoring stage,” “answer ranking stage,” “supporting evidence collection stage,” and “informativity and specificity scorer.” Claim 1 also further recites the additional step of “[vi] returning, by the question answering system, the ranked set of candidate answers.” Claim 11 further recites a “computer Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 12 readable storage medium.” Claim 20 further recites a “processor” and “memory.” The Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. For example, Appellant’s Specification discloses The NL processing system 100 is implemented on one or more computing devices 104 (comprising one or more processors and one or more memories, and potentially any other computing device elements generally known in the art including buses, storage devices, communication interfaces, and the like) connected to the computer network 102. Spec. ¶ 39. Appellant’s Specification further discloses The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by an instruction execution device. The computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but is not limited to, an electronic storage device, a magnetic storage device, an optical storage device, an electromagnetic storage device, a semiconductor storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. Spec. ¶ 76. Thus, the “computing device,” “processor,” “memory,” and “computer readable storage medium” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Appellant’s Specification further discloses the following: “As shown in FIG. 3, the NL system pipeline 300 comprises a plurality of stages 310- 390 through which the NL system operates to analyze an input question and generate a final response.” Spec. ¶ 56. “[T]he question and topic analysis stage 320, analyzes the input question using natural language processing (NLP) techniques to extract major elements from the input question, and Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 13 classify the major elements according to types, e.g., names, dates, or any of a plethora of other defined topics.” Spec. ¶ 56. “[T]he identified major elements of the question are then used during a hypothesis generation stage 340 to decompose the question into one or more search queries that are applied to the corpora of data/information 345 in order to generate one or more hypotheses.” Spec. ¶ 58. The NL system pipeline 300, in stage 350, then performs a deep analysis and comparison of the language of the input question and the language of each hypothesis or “candidate answer,” as well as performs evidence scoring to evaluate the likelihood that the particular hypothesis is a correct answer for the input question. Spec. ¶ 59. “Informativity and specificity scorer 361 calculates a specificity value of each candidate answer taxonomically.” Spec. ¶ 63. “Informativity and specificity scorer 361 determines an informativity value of each candidate answer based on corpus statistics.” Spec. ¶ 66. “In answer ranking stage 360, the scores generated by the various scoring algorithms are synthesized into confidence scores or confidence measures for the various hypotheses.” Spec. ¶ 70. “[I]nformativity and specificity scorer 361 may provide both the specificity value and the informativity value to a machine learning model in answer ranking stage 360, which then weights the specificity and informativity values, or scores, separately to generate the confidence score.” Spec. ¶ 72. “Supporting evidence collection phase 370 collects evidence that supports the candidate answers from answer ranking phase 360.” Spec. ¶ 74. Thus, the “question answering system,” “question answering machine learning model,” “natural language processing pipeline,” “question and topic Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 14 analysis stage,” “hypothesis generation stage,” “hypothesis and evidence scoring stage,” “answer ranking stage,” “supporting evidence collection stage,” and “informativity and specificity scorer” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the additional limitation reciting the step of “[vi] returning, by the question answering system, the ranked set of candidate answers” also does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it merely is directed to the insignificant post-solution activity of outputting data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Thus, we determine claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception because claims 1, 11, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept? Step 2B Because claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception, we must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception. The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states: In accordance with existing guidance, an examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) states: Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 15 A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). A finding that an element is well- understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element. Regarding the “computing device,” “processor,” “computer readable storage medium,” “memory,” “question answering system,” “question answering machine learning model,” “natural language processing pipeline,” “question and topic analysis stage,” “hypothesis generation stage,” “hypothesis and evidence scoring stage,” “answer ranking stage,” “supporting evidence collection stage,” and “informativity and specificity scorer,” the conventional or generalized functional terms by which the computer components are described reasonably indicate that Appellant’s Specification discloses conventional components, and describes the components in a manner that indicates that these elements are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Spec. ¶¶ 39, 56, 58, 59, 63, 66, 70, 72, 74, 76. Further, the Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited components from generic implementation individually and generic implementation in the combination. Thus, these limitations simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 16 Further, regarding “[vi] returning, by the question answering system, the ranked set of candidate answer,” our reviewing court has recognized that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There is no indication that the recited elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance . . . amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.’” (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018))); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive.”). Thus, we determine claims 1, 11, and 20 are not directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 17 Appellant’s arguments Appellant’s arguments do not show any reversible error because the overall process recited by steps [i]-[v] describes sorting (ranking) a set of candidate answers, and recites the abstract concept of “[m]ental processes.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we determine the claimed method steps may be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Federal Circuit has held that if a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has found claims directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” as directed to a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the various steps [i]- [v] recited in independent claim 1 all describe the abstract idea. The abstract idea, even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper, remains an abstract idea. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the claim does not require a specificity score of every term in every possible candidate answer for any Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 18 input question. The claimed subject matter can be practically performed in the human mind. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the claimed subject matter does not improve computer functionality, provide a particular machine, or otherwise present anything more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Rather, the additional limitations beyond the mental processes provide a generic implementation of the abstract idea or are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. We do not see any particular improvements to technology. Therefore, on the record before us, the claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the various hardware components, nor do they achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, to the extent Appellant argues the claim improves the question answering system or, more generally, the computer science discipline of artificial intelligence, this does not make the claim any less abstract and such alleged improvements are part of the abstract idea itself and are not improvements to technology. Finally, regarding Appellant’s arguments relating to Research Corp. Techs and SiRF Tech., Inc., these arguments also do not persuade us of any reversible error because, as explained above, we determine the claims do recite abstract concepts, in particular, mental processes, and the additional limitations beyond the mental processes provide a generic implementation of the abstract idea or are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20. Appeal 2021-000235 Application 15/182,972 19 For the same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-10, which depend form claim 1, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-19, which depend from claim 11. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 101 Patent Eligibility 1-20 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