Accenture Global Solutions Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 8, 2022

2021003291 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 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. 15/187,440 06/20/2016 Nicole COLETTA 0095-0327 3891 113123 7590 03/08/2022 Harrity & Harrity, LLP 11350 Random Hills Rd. Suite 600 Fairfax, VA 22030 EXAMINER HENRY, MATTHEW D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2022 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): docket@harrityllp.com mpick@harrityllp.com ptomail@harrityllp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte NICOLE COLETTA, SHEKAR NALLE PILLI VENKATESWARA, SUSAN GOODYER, JAMES H. WACKER, and NATHAN M. BOAZ __________________ Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-24, which are all of the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Accenture Global Solutions Limited as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 2, 3, 10, and 17 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. (Claims App.) 30, 33, 38. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites a system as follows: 1. A device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, to: receive a document associated with an entity; parse the document using a natural language processing technique to generate profile information associated with the entity; store the profile information in a data structure, of a plurality of data structures, of a first server; communicate with the first server to obtain data regarding the entity, the data being stored by one or more data structures, of the plurality of data structures, of the first server; process the data regarding the entity to determine information relating to one or more data entries of the data; process the information relating to the one or more data entries of the data to generate a classification of the entity, the classification of the entity being associated with a value corresponding to a particular data entry, of the one or more data entries, satisfying a threshold value; identify a set of roles associated with the entity, each role, of the set of roles, being associated with a particular set of skills; determine, for a particular role of the set of roles, a duration and a recency, the particular role being associated with a particular skill; identify a proximate skill relating to the particular skill, the entity being associated with a duration and a recency of the proximate skill; determine a skill proficiency level based on the duration and recency of the proximate skill; Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 3 instruct a client device to provide a validation user interface for display to another entity; receive, from the validation user interface, validation information associated with validating a determination of the skill proficiency level; adjust an analytical data model associated with determining the skill proficiency level based on receiving the validation information indicating that the entity did not utilize the proximate skill at the skill proficiency level; adjust the skill proficiency level to generate an adjusted skill proficiency level based on the validation information; generate one or more recommendations, for a role assignment for the entity, based on the adjusted skill proficiency level; communicate with a second server to cause the one or more recommendations to be implemented for the entity; update the classification of the entity to generate an updated classification based on the adjusted skill proficiency level; generate another recommendation based on the updated classification of the entity; and communicate with the second server to cause the other recommendation to be implemented for the entity. Appeal Br. 28-30 (Claims App.). REJECTION Claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. ANALYSIS Eligibility of Claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-24 Appellant does not argue the claims apart from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9-27. We use claim 1 as the representative claim. Claims 4-9, 11-16, and 18-24 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 4 The Examiner determines that the limitations of claim 1 that receive and parse a document, store profile information, obtain and process data for an entity, process data entries to generate an entity classification associated with a value, satisfy a threshold value, identify a set of roles of the entity, determine a duration and the recency of a particular role of the set of roles where the role is associated with a particular skill, identify a proximate skill, determine a skill proficiency level, receive validation information, adjust an analytical data model, adjust the skill proficiency level, generate one or more recommendations, cause recommendations to be implemented for the entity, update the entity classification, generate a recommendation based on the updated classification, and cause other recommendations to be implemented for the entity recite features that manage interactions between people for the commercial purpose of analyzing skills of employees, which falls within the grouping of methods of organizing human activity. Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner determines that the additional elements of a device, memories, processors, data structures, a first and a second server, a client device, and a validation user interface merely apply the abstract idea on a generic computer and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment without integrating it into a practical application. Id. at 8-9. The Examiner determines that receiving and storing data such as a document, profile information, validation information, entity data, recommendations, and input add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Id. at 8. The Examiner determines that these elements perform conventional functions on a general purpose computer and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. at 12-14. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 5 Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217-18. The USPTO has issued guidance for this framework. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”); MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2106 (9th Ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). 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 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.3 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. 3 “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 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 6 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 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. Statutory Subject Matter / Revised Guidance Step 1 Claim 1 recites a device, which is a statutory category of a machine. See 35 U.S.C. § 101; Final Act. 3. Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One We agree with the Examiner that the focus of claim 1 is on organizing professional, commercial, and business activities of entities and employees by receiving and parsing documents to generate profile information that is stored and processed to classify the entity based on its roles and skill sets, adjust skill proficiency levels, validate determinations of a skill proficiency level, and generate recommendations for activities the entity can perform (role assignments) with updated classifications. Claim 1 thus recites certain methods of organizing human activity such as commercial interactions and business relations. See Final Act. 3-5; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Many of the functions/steps can be performed in the human mind as mental processes of observation, evaluation, and opinion. See Final Act. 5. The application title, SKILL PROFICIENCY SYSTEM, indicates this focus on identifying and organizing skill levels of employees and entities to classify skill proficiencies. See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3, 12-15. Claim 1 recites steps to collect, analyze, and classify those activities. Appeal Br. 28-30 (claim 1). Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 7 To “receive a document associated with an entity” merely collects information about the activities of an entity. Spec. ¶ 44, Fig. 4 (step 410). The information relates to employees or potential employees of a company, projects to which they are assigned, their role on the project, a task assigned to the employee based on their role, and a set of skills associated with their completion of the task. Id. The information may be contained in a resume obtained from a social media account or a personal web page. Id. ¶ 46. To “parse the document using a natural language processing technique to generate profile information associated with the entity” simply extracts information regarding employees’ work activities at an entity to include their roles, skills, and proficiencies to generate profile information associated with the entity. Id. ¶¶ 46, 69. A profile includes information identifying a set of skill proficiency levels for an employee or a specialization of an employee or potential employee. Id. ¶¶ 61, 69. The profile information documents the business activities of an entity’s employees (roles, skills, and proficiencies). To “store the profile information in a data structure, of a plurality of data structures, of a first server” stores the entity’s profile information in a generic data structure for use at a subsequent time. Id. ¶ 69. To “communicate with the first server to obtain data regarding the entity, the data being stored in one or more data structures, of the plurality of data structures, of the first server,” and “process the data . . . to determine information relating to one or more data entries of the data;” and “process the information relating to the one or more data entries of the data to generate a classification of the entity, the classification of the entity being associated with a value corresponding to a particular data entry, of the one or more data entries, satisfying a threshold value” transmits and processes data. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 8 According to the Specification, a cloud server 220 may communicate with a server storing a data structure including data regarding an entity or an employee and may determine that a particular employee was assigned to a particular role for a project, the particular tasks assigned to the employee, and the set of skills associated with completing the tasks. Spec. ¶ 44. These steps collect and analyze data regarding the entity and its employee business activities on projects to include the tasks that were completed and the skills used to do so. Cloud server may process the entity information to generate a classification of the entity and determine if a quantity of months for which an employee was assigned to a particular role satisfies a threshold value associated with a particular skill proficiency level. Id. ¶ 52. Organizing the entity’s (and its employee’s) business activities occurs by other features that “identify a set of roles associated with the entity, each role . . . being associated with a particular set of skills;” “determine, for a particular role of the set of roles, a duration and a recency, the particular role being associated with a particular skill;” “identify a proximate skill relating to the particular skill, the entity being associated with a duration and a recency of the proximate skill;” and “determine a skill proficiency level based on the duration and recency of the proximate skill.” Identifying the duration and recency of particular roles of employees allows the device to determine skill proficiency levels for a skill associated with the role. Spec. ¶ 53. Thus, an employee’s experience of a particular duration in a particular role (activity) requiring particular skills when added to other experience of the employee’s first skill proficiency level may result in the employee’s level of experience satisfying a threshold for a second skill proficiency level. Id. These activities are thus organized and classified. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 9 “A proximate skill may refer to a first skill for which experience in a role involving the first skill causes an employee to be at a higher proficiency for a second skill than another employee without experience in the role involving the first skill.” Spec. ¶ 51 (“For example, cloud server 220 may determine that proficiency in a Java development skill provides experience for a web application development skill.”). Again, the device organizes and classifies employee’s activities (roles, skills) completed for an entity. The claimed device can adjust a skill proficiency level of an employee based on a proximate skill proficiency level of the employee to a higher proficiency level based on the duration and recency of the employee’s role (activities) using the proximate skill. Id. ¶ 57. A validation user interface receives validation information for a skill proficiency level and the validation information is used to adjust an analytic data model associated with a determined skill proficiency level and adjust the skill proficiency level to generate an adjusted skill proficiency level. These features simply obtain additional data to determine if the calculated proficiency levels are accurate for an employee, e.g., based on a supervisor’s review. Id. ¶ 71. Validation may remove a set of skills from an employee’s role where another team member performed the tasks associated with that role. Id. ¶ 18. Validation provides quality control and reduces the risk that an employee is selected for a role based on determined results when the employee is unqualified. Id. ¶ 59. The final steps “generate one or more recommendations, for a role assignment for the entity, based on the adjusted skill proficiency level” and communicate the recommendations to be implemented for the entity and generate updated classifications and recommendations for an entity. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 10 When recited at this level of generality, data processing activities that collect data, parse/filter data to extract profile information that is stored and then processed/analyzed to determine classifications, roles, and skills of the entity, and generate recommendations based on the original classifications and the updated and validated classifications and skill proficiency levels simply organize and classify the activities of entities and their employees by particular activities (roles, skills, proficiency levels, proximate skills). Such data processing steps have been held to recite an abstract idea. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); Bascom Global Internet Svcs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[F]iltering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well- known method of organizing human behavior.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner by attaching classification data is a method of organizing human activity); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing and extracting certain data in the collection, and storing the data recite steps humans always have performed to organize such data and activity); see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The parsing and comparing of claims 1-3 and 9 are similar to the collecting and recognizing of Content Extraction . . . and the classifying in an organized manner of TLI . . . .”). Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 11 These decisions illustrate that claim 1 recites a certain method of organizing human activity by functions that are mental processes. See Appeal Br. 10-13. Claim 1 collects, processes, and classifies data based on business relations and commercial interactions performed by entities and their employees as tasks, roles, and proficiency skills. This information is collected, extracted by parsing with a generic natural language processing technique, the technical details of which are not claimed, and processed by steps that can be performed as mental processes, e.g., generic classification based on a value satisfying a threshold value and a duration and recency of a particular role and associated skills (activities) similar to the claims in TLI, Content Extraction, Berkheimer, Bascom, and Electric Power. Appellant recognizes that filtering content is a method of organizing human activity. See id. at 12 (citing Bascom). As described in the Specification, the parsing essentially filters profile information from collected documents. See Spec. ¶¶ 14, 17, 27, 46, 49, 69, which describe generic parsing of resumes, etc. A person can collect resumes, extract skills or roles from employees’ jobs, and classify their skill proficiency levels based on thresholds as mental steps of evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095- 97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (analyzing audit logs of a user’s transactions and activity according to defined roles from disparate information sources to generate a full picture of a user’s activity, identity, and frequency of activity involves ordinary mental processes); Braemar Mfg., LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 816 F. App’x 465, 470 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (collecting, classifying, and filtering data into groups based on a determined measure of merit, comparing the measure of merit, and transmitting data for review is no more than a mental process). Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 12 Appellant argues that parsing a document using a natural language parsing technique, storing, communicating, validating, and communicating that data are features that require using computer-related technology, and a human mind cannot perform these steps. See Appeal Br. 14. We disagree. “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.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)); see also Tenstreet, LLC v. Driverreach, LLC, 826 F. App’x 925, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (using a peer-to-peer network to verify employment history by collecting, organizing, and storing data on a generic computer network is an abstract idea); In re Jobin, 811 F. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Despite its expansive language and its recitation of servers and databases, claim 221 . . . is . . . directed to the collection, organization, grouping, and storage of data using techniques such as conducting a survey or crowdsourcing. As the Board correctly concluded, this claim is directed to a method of organizing human activity-a hallmark of claims directed to abstract ideas.”); In re Downing, 754 F. App’x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (using resource planning forecasts to collect and analyze non-business and business information of an end user is an abstract idea); Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Like protecting against risk, using categories to organize, store, and transmit information is well-established. Here, the well-known concept of categorical data storage, i.e., the idea of collecting information in classified form, then separating and transmitting that information according to its classification, is an abstract idea that is not patent eligible.”). Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 13 The Specification describes parsing a resume using a natural language processing technique as a generic function without any technical details. See Spec. ¶¶ 27 (“[T]he cloud server may receive a resume for the employee, and may utilize a natural language processing technique to parse the resume.”), 46 (“cloud server 220 may parse a resume” by using a natural language processing technique to identify a company where an employee worked, a role of the employee, a skill associated with the role, or the like), 69 (cloud server 220 parses a resume to identify skill proficiency levels and uses a natural language processing technique to identify factors for roles). Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above. Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two: We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that the additional elements of a device, memories, processors, data structures, first and second server, client device, and validation user interface do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic computer components used as tools/instructions to apply the abstract idea. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 4- 5. They do not improve the functioning of computers or other technology. They do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition. They do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claims. They do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 14 The Specification describes these elements generically without any indication that Appellant invented or improved any of these components. The “device” in the preamble and the “client device” include bus 310, processor 320, memory 330, storage component 340, input component 350, output component 360, and communication interface 370. Spec. ¶ 35. The processor 320 is implemented in hardware, firmware, or a combination. Id. ¶ 36. It includes a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and/or an accelerated processing unit (APU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, and/or any processing component that interprets and/or executes instructions. Id. Memory 330 includes random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), and/or another type of dynamic or static storage device (e.g., flash, magnetic, and/or optical memory) that stores instructions for use by processor 320. Id. Storage component 340 stores information and/or software for the operation of device 300 and may include a hard disk, a compact disc, a digital versatile disc, a floppy disk, a cartridge, a magnetic tape, and/or another type of non-transitory computer-readable medium with a corresponding drive. Id. ¶ 37. The servers are described as cloud server 220 that includes one or more devices capable of storing, processing, and/or routing information associated with a set of skill proficiency levels of an employee. Id. ¶ 32. The client device 210 includes one or more devices capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, and/or providing information associated with a set of skill proficiency levels of an employee. Id. ¶ 31. It may be a mobile smart phone, a computer (e.g., a laptop, tablet, handheld, desktop), a server, a wearable communication device (e.g., a smart wristwatch, a pair of smart eyeglasses), or a similar device that receives and transmits information. Id. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 15 The “data structure” is a generic feature that stores data processed by cloud server 220. See Spec. ¶¶ 17, 44, 47, 49, 51, 61, 62. Cloud server 220 provides a “validation user interface” on a client device to verify a role and proficiency levels and skills for the role. See id. ¶ 71, Fig. 5B (#545). Such a generic computer implementation is insufficient. 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. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply it”’ is not enough for patent eligibility.”) (citation omitted); BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We have consistently held . . . that claims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer.”); TLI, 823 F.3d at 611 (“[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry.”; “[T]he recited physical components merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.”); see also Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claiming a generic database, a user profile, and a communication medium to perform generic computer tasks does not make an abstract idea eligible). Appellant argues that using a cloud server to determine a set of skill proficiency levels by parsing a resume without assessment surveys or testing reduces computing resources and power consumption used by employees and for surveys and testing. Appeal Br. 16-17 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 15, 28, 46, 73). According to Appellant, it improves the inefficient use of processor and/or memory resources when identifying employee skills. Id. at 17-18. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 16 Essentially, the asserted benefits result from automating the abstract idea on generic computer components that perform generic data processing of collection, parsing, filtering, processing, and adjusting skill levels. The device automates steps that humans can perform to review resumes, to parse employee’s skills and roles, and to classify skill proficiency levels. Ans. 5. The Specification attributes the reduced computing resources, power consumption, and processing to cloud server automation. See Spec. ¶¶ 14 (automatically assess duration and recency of roles and proximate skills), 17 (automatically parse records), 24 (automatically assign an employee to a role), 28 (automatically provide role recommendations), 46 (automatically parse resumes), 58 (automatically determine a skill proficiency level), 66 (automatically update and maintain skill proficiency information). Such automation does not improve computers or solve a technical problem. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“But the need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem.”); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. . . . This is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself.”); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.”). Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 17 Notably, the Specification does not attribute the asserted reduction in the use of computing resources (processing resources, energy consumption) to any improvements in computers, processors, memory, data structures, or any other technology. See Spec. ¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 24, 28, 46, 58, 66, 73. Nor do we have any evidence of actual reductions in power consumption and use of computing resources beyond Appellant’s generalized assertions. In Berkheimer, the parser’s determination and extraction of data of documents and item representations and reassembly of the components into composite output files merely parsed and compared data and stored data. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367. In response to Berkheimer’s argument that the “parsing” limitation rooted the claims in technology and transformed the data structure, the court held that limiting the invention to a technological environment does not make an abstract concept any less abstract without evidence that the transformation improves computer functionality. Id. The features argued as a technical solution that improve the inefficient use of processor and/or memory resources when identifying skills of an employee and automatically provide a role recommendation for a qualified employee are features of the abstract idea identified under Prong One above. Appeal Br. 17-21. They are not additional elements. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (“additional elements” are claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features to ensure that it does not monopolize the abstract idea). A wholly generic computer implementation is not the sort of “additional feature” that provides a practical assurance that a process does not monopolize the abstract idea itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 18 Even if we consider these features as additional elements, they do not improve the functioning of computers or other technology. “Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and . . . the improvements can be accomplished through either route.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, “to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1365 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336-39). Here, the “device” uses generic computer components to collect and organize information. “Information as such is an intangible.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (“Accordingly, we 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.”). “Merely claiming ‘those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an 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) (citation omitted); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167-68 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (to avoid ineligibility, a claim must have the specificity to transform it from one claiming only a result to one that claims a way of achieving the result); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (the result-focused, functional nature of the claim language is a frequent feature of claims that are patent-ineligible). Here the receiving, parsing, storing, communicating, classifying, adjusting, identifying, and validating are result-focused without any technical details to indicate that they improve computers or technology. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 19 Even if the Specification described technical details of this process, they are not claimed. See Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1325 (“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful in illuminating what a claim is directed to . . . [but] the specification must always yield to the claim language’ when identifying the ‘true focus of a claim.’”) (citation omitted); Accenture Glob. Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he complexity of the implementing software or the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.”). Generating and communicating recommendations based on adjusted skill proficiency levels and an updated classification recites extra-solution activity. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”); see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31 (data gathering is a form of extra-solution activity); 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.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. . . . The Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis.”); 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.”). Thus, we determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 20 Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B: We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that, when considered individually or as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. This step is satisfied when the limitations involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in the industry. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367. Individually, the additional elements are conventional components that perform conventional functions. The memories and processors receive, parse, store, and process data to classify an entity and identify roles and skill proficiency levels of the abstract idea. The first server includes generic data structures that store data. The validation user interface receives validation information. The second server communicates. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Intellectual Ventures I v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1329, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he remaining limitations recite routine computer functions, such as sending and receiving information to execute the database search, e.g., receiving a request for information and delivering records.”; “The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component . . . that permits performance of the abstract idea.”); 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.”). Appellant does not purport to have invented or improved these elements or their functions. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 21 As an ordered combination, the limitations recite no more than when they are considered individually. “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. “It 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.” Id. at 1290; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (“Using a computer to create and maintain ‘shadow’ accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping-one of the most basic functions of a computer.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. . . . We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are ‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application’ of an abstract idea.”). Appellant argues that no evidence is presented that the claims recite features that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See Appeal Br. 22-25. Appellant argues that paragraphs 36-41 and Figure 3 of the Specification and disclosure describe an exemplary environment for the invention but no other evidence is presented that the claims recite features that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Id. Yet, this description of the additional features without any technical details conveys to skilled artisans that their structure and function are well-known enough that further description of their structure and function is not required. Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 22 USPTO Memorandum of April 19, 2018, ‘‘Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (Apr. 19, 2018), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer- 20180419.PDF (Berkheimer memo), indicates that the Specification may describe additional elements in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification need not describe their particulars to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Berkheimer memo at 3-4. This is just such a case as discussed above. See Spec. ¶¶ 30-41, 46, 69, 71, Figs. 2, 3; see also Final Act. 12-13. Appellant contends that using a natural language processing technique to generate profile information and validation user interface, and generating one or more recommendations for a role assignment are not well-understood, routine, and conventional features because the Examiner concedes that the cited references do not disclose them. Appeal Br. 25-26. Even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, that is not enough for eligibility. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“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.”); Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[M]erely reciting an abstract idea by itself in a claim--even if the idea is novel and non-obvious--is not enough to save it from ineligibility.”); BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”). Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 23 “The ‘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 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Here, the jury’s general finding that Symantec did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that three particular prior art references do not disclose all the limitations of or render obvious the asserted claims does not resolve the question of whether the claims embody an inventive concept at the second step of Mayo/Alice.”). Any alleged novelty or non-obviousness arises in the context of the abstract idea rather than in the physical realm of computers or technology. Thus, an inventive concept is lacking. A validation user interface validates the accuracy of skill proficiency levels. It mitigates the risk of employees with extensive experience being assigned to projects for which they are overqualified and reduces the risk that projects are staffed by underqualified employees. See Spec. ¶¶ 18, 59, 70, 71. Risk mitigation and quality control are abstract ideas when recited at this level of generality without any technical implementation details that improve computers or other technology. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (risk mitigation is a fundamental economic practice); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (mitigating settlement risk is a fundamental economic practice); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (reducing/hedging risk is a fundamental economic practice); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 816 F. App’x 471, 476 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (spot-checking for quality control is a longstanding practice that courts have held to be an abstract idea when performed using generic hardware). Appeal 2021-003291 Application 15/187,440 24 Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-24 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. DECISION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4-9, 11- 16, 18-24 101 Eligibility 1, 4-9, 11- 16, 18-24 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