Accenture Global Solutions Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2020004776 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 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.
15/136,182 04/22/2016 Alex M. Kass 12587-0555001 3318
26212 7590 12/31/2020
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (ACCENTURE)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
JARRETT, SCOTT L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEX M. KASS
____________

Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–3, 6–11, 14–17, 19, and 20. 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. Our decision references the Specification (“Spec.,” filed Apr. 22,
2016, Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Dec. 4, 2019), Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Mar. 30, 2020), Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 13, 2020),
and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 8, 2020). Appellant identifies
Accenture Global Solutions Limited as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for automated
determination of an overall result for a decision, the method
comprising:
[(a)] receiving input data associated with the decision;
[(b)] determining node evaluation results comprising a
first node evaluation result for a first decision node and a second
node evaluation result for a second decision node included a
plurality of decision nodes of a decision hierarchy for the
decision,
wherein the first node evaluation result is
determined by providing at least a portion of the input data
to a first model that has been trained to output the first
node evaluation result,
the second node evaluation result is determined by
providing at least a portion of the input data to a second
model that has been trained to output the second node
evaluation result, and
wherein each of the first model and the second
model has been trained to output the first node evaluation
result and the second node evaluation result, respectively,
based on a machine learning (ML) algorithm and labeled
training data associated with the respective decision node;
[(c)] determining an overall result based on traversing
the decision hierarchy according to the node evaluation results;
[(d)] presenting the overall result and the node evaluation
results in a reviewer user interface (UI); and
[(e)] receiving, in multiple review iterations, reviewer
feedback to modify at least one of the node evaluation results,
the reviewer feedback provided through the reviewer UI and, for
each review iteration, determining a modified overall result
based on re-traversing the decision hierarchy according to the
node evaluation results including the modified at least one node
evaluation result, and presenting the modified overall result in
the reviewer UI.
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
3

REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 6–11, 14–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 12–18.
We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a claim 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 Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, 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 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,
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
4
566 U.S. at 79, 78). 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).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published
revised guidance on January 7, 2019 for use by USPTO personnel in
evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED
PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “Guidance”).2 The Guidance revised the USPTO’s
examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice
framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are]
considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed
to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception. Id. at 50.
The first step, as set forth in the Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is, thus, a
two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites
a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract
ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human
activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or
legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. Id. at 54. If so, we next
determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates
the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply,

2 The USPTO issued an update on October 17, 2019 (the “October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) clarifying the
2019 Revised Guidance in response to public comments.
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
5
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. Id. at 54–55. Only if
the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id.
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under
revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and
in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive
concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only then, is
the claim patent eligible. Id. at 56.
Here, in rejecting the pending claims under § 101, the Examiner
determined that independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite a process for “human
decision making” that comprises a series of steps that can be performed in
the human mind or via pen and paper and, thus, is a “mental process,” which
is an abstract idea. Final Act. 15. The Examiner also determined that the
claims are directed to “assisting a user in making a decision,” which is a
certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea. Id. The
Examiner further determined that the claims do not include additional
elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Id. at 15–17. Finally, the Examiner determined that dependent claims 2–8,
10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are patent ineligible for substantially similar
reasons. Id. at 17.
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
6
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Guidance, Step 2A)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Appeal
Br. 15–17. 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. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). 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. Here, it clear from the Specification (including the
claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea and not on any
improvement to technology or a technical field.
The Specification is titled “HIERARCHICAL VISUALIZATION
FOR DECISION REVIEW SYSTEMS,” and describes, in the Background
section, that organizations make decisions regarding the organization’s
operations and/or business processes. Spec. ¶ 1. The organization may use
computing systems executing decision engines programmed with artificial
intelligence or other algorithms to make decisions automatically. Id.
However, traditional decision engines output the result without any
explanation as to the reasons for the result. Id. Because of the failure “to
provide visibility into the decision-making process, traditional decision
engines . . . make it difficult or impossible to improve the decision making
process to enable higher confidence in the decision results.” Id. The
claimed invention is intended to improve on these existing practices by
providing “a visualization system that presents a hierarchical arrangement of
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
7
decision nodes and node evaluation results to facility the review of a
decision that includes multiple sub-decisions indicated by the multiple
decision nodes.” Id. ¶ 2. Claim 1, thus, recites a computer-implemented
method for automated determination of an overall result for a decision
comprising: (1) “receiving input data associated with the decision”
(step (a)); (2) determining node evaluation results and an overall result, i.e.,
determining node evaluation results comprising a first
node evaluation result for a first decision node and a second node
evaluation result for a second decision node included a plurality
of decision nodes of a decision hierarchy for the decision,
wherein the first node evaluation result is determined by
providing at least a portion of the input data to a first model that
has been trained to output the first node evaluation result, the
second node evaluation result is determined by providing at least
a portion of the input data to a second model that has been trained
to output the second node evaluation result, and wherein each of
the first model and the second model has been trained to output
the first node evaluation result and the second node evaluation
result, respectively, based on a machine learning (ML) algorithm
and labeled training data associated with the respective decision
node;
determining an overall result based on traversing the
decision hierarchy according to the node evaluation results;
(steps (b) and (c)); (3) “presenting the overall result and the node
evaluation results . . .” (step (d)); and receiving feedback to modify at
least one of the node evaluation results and determining a modified
overall result based on re-traversing the decision hierarchy , i.e.,
receiving, in multiple review iterations, reviewer feedback
to modify at least one of the node evaluation results, the reviewer
feedback provided . . . for each review iteration, determining a
modified overall result based on re-traversing the decision
hierarchy according to the node evaluation results including the
modified at least one node evaluation result, and presenting the
modified overall result . . .
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
8
(step (e)). The Specification describes that the claimed invention
“enable[s] a reviewer to make better use of their time by allowing them
to identify and focus in on likely trouble spots quickly, make a
judgement about the degree of certainty of the automated results, and
improve metrics and/or dimensions that involve combining the
automated intelligence with human intelligence and review.” Spec. ¶ 6.
Broadly construed, steps (a) through (e) of claim 1 recite a method for
improving determining an overall result for a decision. This concept
relates to managing interactions between people (including following
rules or instructions), i.e., a certain method of organizing human
activity, which is an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appellant argues that independent claim 1 is not directed to an
abstract idea at least because the claim does not recite subject matter that
falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. Appeal
Br. 15–16. According to Appellant, claim 1 addresses deficiencies in
traditional decision engines that provide no visibility into the decision-
making process. Id. at 16 (citing Spec. ¶ 1). Specifically, the claimed
invention “presents a hierarchical arrangement of decision nodes and node
evaluation results to facilitate the review of a decision that includes multiple
sub-decisions indicated by the multiple decision nodes.” Id. at 16 (quoting
Spec. ¶ 2). In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that claim 1 is not directed
to “an improved user interface” (Reply Br. 1), but instead “addresses
visibility into decisions provided by computer-executed decision engines”
(id. at 2).
Yet, providing visibility into a decision-making process of an
organization and facilitating the review of a decision relates to managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
9
following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of the abstract idea
grouping “certain methods of organizing human activity.” See 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Having concluded that claims recite a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One), we next consider whether the claims
recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (Step 2A, Prong Two). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. The only additional element beyond the abstract idea recited in
claim 1 is a “reviewer user interface.” However, these additional elements
are recited and described at a high level of generality. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 58.
Moreover, Appellant acknowledges that the claimed invention is not
directed to an improved user interface. Appeal Br. 18.
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that claim 1
integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. For example,
Appellant argues that claim 1 provides a technical improvement over
traditional decision engines. Appeal Br. 15. According to Appellant, the
automated decision engine of claim 1 “refin[es], improv[es], or otherwise
enhanc[es] the decision results and/or the models used to evaluate a
decision”; is “more accurate, more efficient and configured to operate while
consuming less processor and/or memory recources compared to traditional
decision engines”; and “facilitat[es] efficient review of decisions through
presentation of the hierarchical arrangement of node evaluation results.” Id.
(quoting Spec. ¶ 6); see also id. at 16–17 (repeating these assertions).
Yet, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality
improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to
perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal
Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
10
the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific
type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the
way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on
asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be
put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36.
The alleged improvement that Appellant touts, i.e., providing a
decision engine that is “more accurate,” “more efficient” or uses “less
processor and/or memory resources,” does not concern an improvement to
computer capabilities. Instead, at best, it relates to an alleged improvement
to the abstract idea of determining an overall result for a decision — a
process in which a user interface is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity.
This is not enough for patent eligibility. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[P]atent law does not protect
such claims[, i.e., claims to an asserted advance in the realm of abstract
ideas], without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”).
Appellant asserts that, like the claims at issue in DDR Holdings LLC
v. Hotels, Inc., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), claim 1 is patent-eligible
“because the underlying technology (computer-implemented decision
engines) exists and the claimed subject matter addresses issues (traditional
decision engines may fail to provide visibility into the decision making
process . . . ) arising in the underlying technology.” Appeal Br. 17; see also
Reply Br. 2–3. However, limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment (a computer-implemented decision engine) is
insufficient to transform an otherwise patent-ineligible abstract idea inot
patent-eligible subject matter. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222.
In DDR Holdings the Federal Circuit determined that the claimed
invention “address[ed] a business challenge (retaining website visitors)
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
11
[that] is a challenge particular to the Internet.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d
at 1257. The court also determined that the invention was “necessarily
rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically
arising in the realm of computer networks,” and that the claimed invention
did not simply require the performance of some business practice on the
Internet. Id. Rather, there was a change to the routine, conventional
functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol. Id.
Unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, the problem identified by
Appellant (providing visibility into a decision making process) addresses a
shortcoming in a process that is the abstract idea itself, not a problem
peculiar to computer networks or technology. Here, we see no technological
improvement recited in claim 1 analogous to the change to the routine,
conventional functioning of computer networks provided by the claims at
issue in DDR Holdings. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. At most,
claim 1 requires implementing the abstract idea using a generic user
interface. Id. at 1256 (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation
of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim
patent-eligible.”). We find that the invocation of a user interface is not
sufficient to transform Appellant's otherwise patent-ineligible abstract idea
into patent-eligible subject matter.
We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a
method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the
additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., the user
interface) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to
perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223–24
(“[W]holly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
12
‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process
is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]
itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the
Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether claim 1
includes additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an
“inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of
elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not
“well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is
indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry
to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each
claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to
determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the
abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible
application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72–73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a
natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements,
sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
natural law itself” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Appeal 2020-004776
Application 15/136,182
13
Here, the Examiner determined, and we agree, that the only additional
element recited in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea is a “reviewer user
interface,” i.e., generic computer component. See 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.”). Appellant has not
identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in
combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 6–11, 14–17,
19, and 20, which fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–11,
14–17, 19,
and 20
101 Eligibility 1–3, 6–11,
14–17, 19,
20

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