Scope Technologies Holdings Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021004542 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 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. 16/525,384 07/29/2019 Gil Emanuel Fuchs 16710-008USC1 1499 21918 7590 03/01/2022 DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC 199 MAIN STREET P O BOX 190 BURLINGTON, VT 05402-0190 EXAMINER ALLADIN, AMBREEN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com patip@drm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GIL EMANUEL FUCHS __________________ Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before BRADLEY B. BAYAT, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21-24, and 27-32, which constitute all pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A video hearing was held on January 31, 2022. We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies Scope Technologies Holdings Limited as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 25, and 26 are canceled. Appeal Br. 19-21. Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 27 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations and emphasis, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer-implemented method for vehicle navigation incorporating risk-based routing, comprising: [(a)] compiling a multiple parameter-function risk database in a non-transitory storage including historical information categorized as a function of location and time, the historical information comprising a plurality of risk factors wherein each risk factor is both geo-referenced to a transportation element and temporally referenced; [(b)] developing a statistical predictive relationship to estimate an initial risk as a function of the historical information for said transportation elements compiled in the multiple parameter-function risk database and storing the statistical predictive relationship in a memory; [(c)] determining risk values for the transportation elements as a function of the historical information location and time with a processor using the statistical predictive relationship stored in memory; [(d)] receiving, at a processor through a navigation device, a routing request associated with a specific vehicle for routing across a transportation network comprised of transportation elements contained within the multiple parameter-function risk database, the routing request including identification of time of travel, a start location and a destination location; [(e)] determining, with the processor, routes across the transportation network, each determined route comprising proposed transportation elements to be traversed between the start location and the destination location at the time of travel; [(f)] selecting risk values for the proposed transportation elements of each determined route from the multiple parameter-function risk database, said selecting comprising selecting the initial risk value for said proposed Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 3 transportation elements having the time function corresponding to the time of travel; [(g)] calculating, with the processor, a relative risk for each said determined route at the time of travel based on the selected risk values for each determined route; and [(h)] presenting, through the navigation device, one or more of said determined routes with its calculated relative risk. REJECTION3 Claims 1-10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21-24, and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Final Act. 9-16. ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 27 and dependent claims 2-10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21-24, and 28-31 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step 3 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been withdrawn. Advisory Action 1. Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 4 in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ - i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217-18 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The USPTO has issued guidance with respect to that framework. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.4 Id. at 52-55. If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim (3) provides an inventive concept 4 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 5 such as by adding a limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (4) appends well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. The Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 27 as a group. See Appeal Br. 6-11. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019). Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law that is reviewable de novo. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, our analysis and characterization of the abstract idea below is different from the Examiner’s characterization as a fundamental economic practice and/or a commercial or legal interaction. See Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 8. The limitations of claim 1, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite abstract mental processes and mathematical concepts. Step (a) of claim 1 recites “compiling . . . historical information categorized as a function of location and time, the historical information comprising a plurality of risk factors wherein each risk factor is both geo-referenced to a transportation element and temporally referenced.” Appeal Br. 17. For example, compiling historical information can include collecting data, such as historical traffic flow and weather information by time and location (Spec. ¶¶ 33, 67, 70), or maintaining a “risk database [that] simply contain[s] accident incidents . . . related to individual transportation segments” (id. ¶ 76). In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 6 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reiterated: “[W]e have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.”5 In TLI, the court held that the concept of storing and classifying data in an organized manner is an abstract idea. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, step (a) similarly recites an abstract idea. Step (b) recites “developing a statistical predictive relationship to estimate an initial risk as a function of the historical information for said transportation elements . . . and storing the statistical predictive relationship” Appeal Br. 17. For example, this step encompasses developing a predictive model such as a neural network predictive model known in the art. Spec. ¶¶ 70-71; see also Reply Br. 15 (citing Spec., Fig. 4, box 408). Developing a mathematical algorithm, as recited, is an abstract idea as both a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper and a mathematical concept. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution is an 5 See also e.g., Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 7 abstract idea). Step (c) recites “determining risk values for the transportation elements as a function of the historical information location and time . . . using the statistical predictive relationship.” Appeal Br. 17. “An example of parameterization would be to characterize incidents into a grouping . . . to collectively refer to accidents counts falling into a range of 1-10 accidents per year as a ‘low’ accident count and have ‘medium’ and ‘high’ counts as well.” (Spec. ¶ 74). Mental processes performed in the human mind, which involve a series of evaluations or judgments using observed data, recite an abstract idea. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373 (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea.”); accord Versata Dev. Grp. Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, step (c) recites an abstract idea. Step (d) recites “receiving . . . a routing request associated with a specific vehicle for routing across a transportation network comprised of transportation elements . . . , the routing request including identification of time of travel, a start location and a destination location.”6 Appeal Br. 17. Receiving data or information, which is an observation that may be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, is a mental process and an abstract idea. Step (e) recites “determining . . . routes across the transportation network, each determined route comprising proposed transportation 6 Paragraphs 13, 42, and 83 of the Specification, on which the Appellant relies for support (Appeal Br. 3), do not describe receiving a routing request. Paragraph 83 discloses that “the system pre-determines routes that the driver in question has historically taken.” Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 8 elements to be traversed between the start location and the destination location at the time of travel.” Appeal Br. 17. Paragraph 84 of the Specification indicates that “routes are also calculated taking into account the real-time information.” Calculating a travel route, which involves the segmentation of a line between two points, is a mathematical concept and an abstract idea. See SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163 (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas). Step (f) recites “selecting risk values for the proposed transportation elements of each determined route . . . , said selecting comprising selecting the initial risk value for said proposed transportation elements having the time function corresponding to the time of travel.” Appeal Br. 18. “For example, initial weighting or correlation values might need to be assigned to the input variables. An educated guess may be that the number of pot holes in a road is about half as important to risk as the number of drunk driving arrests.” Spec. ¶ 72. Selecting risk values as described involves evaluations or judgments that may be performed in the human mind, which is a mental process and an abstract idea. Step (g) recites the abstract idea of “calculating . . . a relative risk for each said determined route at the time of travel based on the selected risk values for each determined route.” Appeal Br. 18. For example, calculating “the average number of accidents that occur on each transportation element over a given time period” (Spec. ¶ 77) is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind and a mathematical concept. Finally, step (h) recites “presenting . . . one or more of said determined routes with its calculated relative risk.” Appeal Br. 18. Merely Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 9 “display[ing] driving hazard or insurance risk relative to transportation segments on a map of a transportation network” (Spec. ¶ 41; id. ¶ 84 (“then this information can be displayed to the driver”)) without more represents post-solution activity, i.e., displaying the solution calculated in step (g). In Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354, the court stated that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information is abstract as an ancillary part of the collection and analysis. See also Peschke Map Techs. LLC v. Rouse Props. Inc., 168 F. Supp. 3d 881, 887 (E.D. Va. 2016) (claims directed to “an electronic map navigation system that enables a user to ‘locate a particular store through the use of location and layout information”’ are directed to an abstract idea). Under Prong One of Step 2A, we determine that each of the steps of claim 1 above recites an abstract idea. Here, the claim is “clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354. And merely combining these abstract ideas, as claimed, does not render the combination any less abstract. See Shortridge v. Found. Constr. Payroll Serv., LLC, 655 F. App’x 848 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”). Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One), we next consider whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two). Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to” the Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 10 judicial exception. Id. A claim may integrate the judicial exception when, for example, it reflects an improvement to technology or a technical field. Id. at 55. The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp., 790 F.3d at 1346). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim “recite[s] an improvement in the field of computer-based vehicle navigation.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular, the Appellant contends that requiring receipt of “a routing request associated with a specific vehicle for routing across a transportation network . . . including identification of time of travel, a start location and a destination location” and “determining . . . routes across the transportation network each determined route comprising proposed transportation elements to be traversed between the start location and the destination location at the time of travel” expressly tie the claimed invention to an improvement in vehicle navigation. The improvement is genuine and real, regardless of whether or not a person actually uses the invention to navigate to a destination or to plan a future vacation that may never be taken. Reply Br. 11. Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 11 Rather, we agree with the Examiner that the recited additional elements of claim 1 (italicized), which include a “multiple parameter- function risk database in a non-transitory storage,” “memory,” “processor,” and “navigation device,” are recited at a high level of generality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Final Act. 12. The Appellant’s disclosure describes the navigation device as a generic component that “can be integral to the vehicle, a stand-alone device or software implemented on a computer, smartphone or tablet device.” Spec. ¶ 83. And, the Specification discloses that the claimed arrangement “utilizes a navigation device located in a vehicle. The navigation device is either in communication with a risk database and a driving habits database or the databases are stored within the navigation device.” Id. In other words, the navigation device or processor is arranged in no particular way to perform basic functions of receiving, determining, and displaying information. The Specification’s description of the navigation device and processor makes clear that generic computer components are utilized as tools to implement the abstract idea, rather than improving the functioning of the processor or vehicle-based navigation technology. See Spec. ¶ 87 (“The present invention may be conveniently implemented using one or more conventional general purpose or specialized digital computers or microprocessors programmed according to the teachings of the present disclosure. Appropriate software coding can readily be prepared by skilled programmers based on the teachings of the present disclosure, as will be apparent to those skilled in the software art.”). “Merely claiming ‘those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 12 advance,’ does not make a claim eligible at step one.” Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020); SAP, 898 F.3d at 1167-68 (to avoid ineligibility, a claim must have the specificity that transforms it from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving the result); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (because content data update instructions that enable updating of displayed information are recited only at the broadest, functional level, without any explanation of how that is accomplished, let alone providing a technical means for performing that function, they are not directed to a technological improvement for performing those functions and consist only of generic and conventional information acquisition and organization steps that do not convert the abstract idea into a particular conception of how to carry out that concept); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (noting that the essentially result-focused, functional character of the claim language at issue is a frequent feature of claims that are held to be ineligible under § 101). As a whole, claim 1 does no more than recite instructions and functions in general terms to implement the abstract idea on a generic processor and navigation device. Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks any additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements, individually, or as an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. The second step of the Alice test is satisfied when the claim limitations involve more than the performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 13 see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (explaining that the second step of the Alice analysis considers whether a claim adds a specific limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field). The Appellant argues that “the claims require important and significant additional steps and functions, none of which can be considered conventional.” Appeal Br. 10. For example, compiling multiple-parameter function risk database and use of multiple-parameter-function risk estimates/factors. Compiling such a risk database and using risk factors compiled as a function of multiple parameters - i.e. at least geo-referenced and temporally-referenced - and developing a statistical predictive model based on the recited multiple- parameter-function risk factors is not conventional or well- known in the art. By avoiding mention of these important aspects of the claims, the analysis in the Final Office Action also fails to appreciate that the present invention provides an improvement in navigation devices and methods by bringing in safety and risk- based routing in a more accurate and comprehensive manner than previously possible. Id. at 10-11. According to the Appellant, “[t]he indexing of the risk factors by both a geographic reference and a temporal reference is an additional element that is not anywhere established to be conventional or well-known as of the effective filing date in 2014.” Reply Br. 13. We are unpersuaded by the Appellant’s argument because “[i]t has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 14 more’ to it.” Id. at 1291; see also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1370 (claims to performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with conventional computer components lacked an inventive concept); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display and transmission is not inventive and amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technology); 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.”). “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290-91; see Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atl., 955 F.3d 971, 980-81 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (using well-known computer components to collect and analyze data, present data, and send notifications recites a logical sequence with no inventive concept); SAP, 898 F.3d at 1169-70 (claims to already available databases and processors that perform already available basic functions to include generic parallel processing components that are not asserted to be inventive to carry out improved mathematical calculations amounts to reciting what is well- understood, routine, and conventional); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (claims to using off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology to gather, send, and present desired information lack an inventive concept). As such, the recited physical components discussed above behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary use and the steps do nothing Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 15 more than describe what it means to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. We disagree with the Appellant’s argument that “[p]atent eligibility of the claims is confirmed by the fact that they have been determined to recite novel, non-obvious inventive concepts.” Appeal Br. 13. It is well- established that “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981); see Ans. 20-21. Even if the techniques are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, that is not enough for eligibility. SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89-90, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting. Id. Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 16 Accordingly, we find that claim 1 lacks additional elements that provide an inventive concept. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and independent claim 27, which falls with claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21-24, and 28-31, which are not argued separately. Dependent claim 32 The Appellant separately argues: Claim 32, which is dependent on claim 27, further recites important limitations of “selecting the determined route with the lowest calculated relative risk” and then “navigating the vehicle along the selected determined route.” Claim 32 thus requires the use of a further, highly particularized machine: a vehicle capable of navigation along a route comprised of transportation elements. The navigation of a vehicle along a specific route is unquestionably a practical application of the recited methods. Appeal Br. 12. The Appellant cites paragraphs 10, 38, and 84 of the Specification in support of this claimed subject matter. Id. at 4. Yet, none of the relied-upon paragraphs in the Specification describe “navigating the vehicle along the selected determined route.” For example, paragraph 84 describes presenting routes to the driver, i.e., “[i]f an alternate route is found that is safer and/or faster 514, then this information can be displayed to the driver and a selection can be presented to route via the safer or faster route 518.” (Emphasis added). And, as discussed above, displaying information to the driver on a generic processor or navigation device does not reflect an improvement to computer functionality or vehicle navigation technology. See Ans. 20. Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claim 32 under section 101. Appeal 2021-004542 Application 16/525,384 17 CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1-10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21-24, and 27-32 under § 101 is affirmed. DECISION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21-24, 27- 32 101 Eligibility 1-10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21- 24, 27-32 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