Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 19, 2021

2020006594 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2021)

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.
15/472,580 03/29/2017 Aleksey Ashikhmin 401410-US-NP 6520
69316 7590 07/19/2021
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
ABOUZAHRA, REHAM K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2021 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
jkarr@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEKSEY ASHIKHMIN, LIN XIAO,
SI MENG, and CHANTRELLE NIELSEN
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
Technology Center 3600
Before SCOTT B. HOWARD, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, 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. See Final Act. 1. 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 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC of Redmond, Washington. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a space optimization solver using team
collaboration patterns to guide team-to-floor allocation planning. Spec. ¶ 4.
Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
8. A space optimization system comprising:
a memory;
one or more processors;
a data storage device having stored thereon floor plans and
traffic patterns between buildings;
an interaction module, under control of the one or more
processors, to:
identify interactions between members of multiple
teams within an organization,
wherein the interactions include multiple different
types of interactions each associated with differing
weights; and
determine, based on the interactions between the
members of the multiple teams within the organization, an
interaction matrix that represents a weighted number of
interactions between each of the multiple teams;
a location layout module, under the control of the one or
more processor, to estimate travel times between the multiple
teams within the organization, wherein the travel times are based
on the floor plans and traffic patterns between buildings retrieved
from the data storage device;
a travel module, under control of the one or more
processors, to create a travel matrix based on the travel times
between the multiple teams during the interactions of the
members of the multiple teams; and
an optimization module, under control of the one or more
processors, to generate a smart location plan identifying how the
multiple teams should be physically located within the
organization,
wherein the smart location plan is generated, at least in
part, by solving an optimization problem that minimizes an
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
3
objective function based on the interaction matrix and the travel
matrix subject to one or more constraints.
Appeal Br. 18–19 (App. A).
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act.
9–17.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–16, 19, and 20
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–
16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter is in error. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are forfeited. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2021). Appellant argues claims 1–
3, 6–10, 13–16, 19, and 20 as a group. Appeal Br. 7. Given our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the § 101 rejection of claims 1–
3, 6–10, 13–16, 19, and 20 based on representative claim 8.
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 U.S. 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 Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
4
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
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part
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.
(alterations in original) (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.
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
5
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101.2, 3
Under MPEP § 2106, 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 (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).4
MPEP § 2106.04(a)) and § 2106.04(d).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application,5 do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:

2 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). In response to received public
comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019,
clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”). “All USPTO
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1.
3 The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates
this revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev.
10.2019, rev. June 2020). All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth
Edition, Revision 10.2019 (Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise
indicated.
4 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether” the claim as
a whole “integrates the exception into a practical application.” MPEP
§ 2106.04(d)(II).
5 This corresponds to Alice part one where it is determined whether the claim
is “directed to” an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. If a claim is “not
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
6
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field; 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.6
MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determined that claim 8 recites an abstract idea. Final
Act. 6; Ans. 4. In particular, the Examiner determined that claim 8 recites
“managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people
(including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction),”
which is a certain method of organizing human activity and thus an abstract
idea. Ans. 4.
The Examiner identified the following steps of claim 1 as part of the
recited abstract idea:
identifying interactions between members of multiple teams
within the organization, wherein the interactions include multiple
different types of interactions each associated with differing weights;
determining, based on the interactions between the
members of the multiple teams within the organization, an
interaction matrix that represents a weighted number of
interactions between each of the multiple teams;
estimating travel times between the multiple teams within
the organization, wherein the travel times are based on floor
plans and traffic patterns between buildings;

directed to an abstract idea under part one of the Alice framework, we do not
need to proceed to step two.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
6 This corresponds to Alice part two where it is determined whether the
claim contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed
abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
7
creating a travel matrix based on the travel times between
the multiple teams during the interactions of the members of the
multiple teams;
and generating a smart location plan identifying how the
multiple teams should be physically located within the
organization, wherein the smart location plan is generated, at
least in part, by solving an optimization problem that minimizes
an objective function based on the interaction matrix and the
travel matrix subject to one or more constraints,
Ans. 5. These steps are similarly recited in claim 8 as functions for the
various modules. The Examiner also determined that each of the identified
steps of the abstract idea is a mental process, which is another category of
abstract ideas. Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “claim 8 is much more
than a method of organizing activity.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant does not
present arguments regarding what claim 8 recites, but rather argues that “the
combination of components and features provide an integrated practical
application of the space optimization tool.” Id.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Consistent with
Appellant’s description of the claims, we find that the limitations
summarized above describe identifying and weighting interactions between
teams, estimating travel times between the teams, and generating a location
plan identifying how the teams should be physically located by solving an
optimization problem. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 4, 19. Such activity is fairly
characterized as “managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction
between people,” which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human
activity” category of abstract ideas.
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
8
We also find no error in the Examiner’s determination that each of the
steps identified above amounts to an abstract mental process.7 The 2019
Revised Guidance explains that “mental processes” include acts that people
can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites
that a generic computer component performs the acts. See MPEP
§ 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of
generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims
themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally
or with pen and paper.”), quoted in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Appellant
does not argue that the “identify,” “determine,” “estimate,” “create,” and
“generate” functions, as recited in claim 8, cannot be performed in the
human mind or practicably with pen and paper. Arguments not made are
forfeited. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Because we agree with the Examiner that the claim recites an abstract
idea, we proceed to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine if the idea is
integrated into a practical application, in which case the claim as a whole
would not be “directed to” merely an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
We next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated
into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether
there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial

7 “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of
abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The level of abstraction an examiner uses to describe an abstract idea
need not “impact the patentability analysis.” Apple, 842 F.3d at 1241.
Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea
recited in claim 8, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
9
exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and
in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.
We use the term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations,
or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. In
claim 8, the additional elements include the limitations “a space optimization
system,” “a memory,” “one or more processors,” “a data storage device,” “a
location layout module,” “an interaction module,” “a travel module,” and
“an optimization module.” See Ans. 6.
To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional
claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or
any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the
judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect
a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or
thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in
some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e)).
The Examiner determined that none of the additional limitations is
sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See
Ans. 6. In particular, the Examiner determined the additional computer
elements “perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a
practical application” and “is tantamount to simply saying ‘apply it’ using a
general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment.” Id.
Appellant argues the recited “a location layout module ... to estimate
travel times between the multiple teams within the organization, wherein
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
10
the travel times are based the floor plans and traffic patterns between
buildings retrieved from the data storage device” creates a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant further argues claim 8 is “necessarily rooted in advanced
computer technology.” Id. at 10–11.
Neither argument is persuasive of Examiner error. We agree with the
Examiner that the “estimate” limitation of claim 8 is part of the abstract idea
and is not an additional element. In Step 2A, Prong Two, we evaluate
additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether
they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
We also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s conclusory argument that
Example 40 of Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 37–42 is similar to claim
8. See Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, “[m]uch like the claim from
the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the current claims integrate any
alleged abstract idea into practical application.” Id. at 12. Example 40,
however, is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data on
a network. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional protocol
data to when the initially-collected data reflects an abnormal condition,
which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network
performance. See Claim 1, Ex. 40. The improvement in Example 40 is
related to “improved network monitoring,” which improves network
technology. Claim 8 is distinguished from Example 40 because claim 8 does
not recite any communications network, let alone improvements to network
technology.
Considering claim 8 as a whole, Appellant’s invention lacks a
technical solution to a technical problem like the claim in Example 40.
Claim 8 as a whole merely uses instructions to implement the abstract idea
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
11
on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform
the abstract idea. Here, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claims do not
recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other
technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the
judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different
thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. Rather, claim 8 recites
an abstract ideas as identified in Step 2A(i), supra, and none of the
limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application, we conclude that the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B — “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the “inventive concept” step. For Step 2B we
must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to
determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of
the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs.
of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2016)). We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the
claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims
eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573
U.S. at 221. Those “additional features” must be more than “well-
understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79.
The Examiner determined that the additional elements in claim 8 are
described “at a very high level of generality and without imposing
meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.” Final Act. 11. The
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
12
Examiner found that Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification describe generic,
off-the-shelf, computer-based elements for implementing the claimed
invention that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Id.
The Examiner determined that the collective computer functions recited in
claim 8 “merely provide conventional computer implementation.” Id. at 12.
Appellant argues that “the features of claim 8 and the other claims,
when taken as an ordered combination, provide unconventional steps that
confine the abstract idea to a particular useful system and application.”
Appeal Br. 13. In Appellant’s view, “the elements or functions amount to
significantly more.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s conclusory argument. Appellant
does not direct our attention to anything in the Specification that indicates
the computer components perform anything other than well-understood,
routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving data, looking up data
in a database, processing data, and storing data in a database. See 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”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (server that receives data,
extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the
digital images insufficient to add an inventive concept); Alice, 573 U.S. at
225-26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to
add an inventive concept).
Because the Specification describes the additional elements in general
terms, without describing the particulars, we conclude the claim limitations
may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer
components and techniques. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(D) (explaining that
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
13
a specification that describes additional elements in a manner that indicates
that the additional elements are so well-known that they do not need to be
described in detail to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) can show that the elements are
well understood, routine, and conventional); see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 21, 29, 30,
72. We conclude claim 8 does not have an inventive concept because the
claim, in essence, merely recites various computer-based elements along
with no more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea
using the computer-based elements.
Because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, without
significantly more, we sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of independent
claim 8 and grouped claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–16, 19, and 20, not argued
separately with particularity.

Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18
With regard to dependent claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18, Appellant
argues that, because the claims recite generating a graphical user interface
that can be displayed on a client device, the claims cannot recite a mental
process. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant also argues in a conclusory manner that
the claims do not recite “a certain method of organizing human activity.” Id.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining claims
4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 recite an abstract idea. Each dependent claim
includes all the limitations of the independent claim from which it depends.
See 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph (“A claim in dependent form shall be
construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to
which it refers.”). We addressed independent claims 1, 8, and 15 above and
determined they recite an abstract idea. Thus, dependent claims 4, 5, 11, 12,
17, and 18 also recite an abstract idea.
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
14
Appellant further argues that claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 recite
improved user interfaces for electronic devices, and thus integrate any
abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Core Wireless
Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. In Core Wireless, the court
stated that “[t]he disclosed invention improves the efficiency of using the
electronic devices.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. However, the court
also explained that “[w]e also ask whether the claims are directed to a
specific improvement in the capabilities of computing devices” (id. at 1361),
and then determine that “the claims are directed to an improvement in the
functioning of computers” (id. at 1363). Thus, in Core Wireless, the
improved efficiency of using the electronic devices was related to an
identified improvement in the functioning of computers.
The claims here do not recite an improvement for electronic devices.
See Ans. 10. Generating a graphical user interface for display, as in claims 4,
5, 11, 12, 17, and 18, without more, does not improve the functioning of the
computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological
problem. Rather, the claims simply include instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer and do no more than generally link the use of a
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Appellant has not identified anything in the Specification that indicates the
graphical user interface computer components perform anything other than
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.
Because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, without
significantly more, we sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of dependent
claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18.
Appeal 2020-006594
Application 15/472,580
15
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 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