ACCURENCE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 8, 2022

2021002534 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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. 15/606,475 05/26/2017 Zachary Labrie 8222-25 6215 22442 7590 02/08/2022 Sheridan Ross PC 1560 Broadway Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER ALLADIN, AMBREEN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2022 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): e-docket@sheridanross.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ZACHARY LABRIE, JACOB LABRIE, and TIMOTHY BRUFFEY ____________ Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Zachary Labrie, Jacob Labrie, and Timothy Bruffey (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented a way of making estimates for repairing, replacing, or otherwise compensating for damaged properties or other losses. Specification para. 2. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 9, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 9. An automated estimate quality assurance review method comprising: [1] receiving, at a processor and via a communication network, a submitted estimate and one or more images, the submitted estimate comprising a plurality of line items and corresponding to a loss type; [2] storing the submitted estimate in a computer-readable memory; [3] analyzing image data associated with an image of the one or more images submitted with the received estimate; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed November 20, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 26, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 28, 2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 20, 2020). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Accurence, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 3 [4] converting the image data into text data; [5] analyzing the submitted estimate with the processor, wherein the analyzing comprises making a determination as to whether the received estimate meets a predetermined requirement, wherein the determination is based at least in part on the submitted estimate, the text data, and at least one piece of information not included in the submitted estimate or the text data; [6] completing, with the processor, at least one post-review action; [7] generating, with the processor, a report containing the determination; and [8] transmitting the report to a plurality of entities. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Abbruzzese US 5,557,515 Sept. 17, 1996 Rix US 2004/0243423 A1 Dec. 2, 2004 Hanson US 8,265,963 B1 Sept. 11, 2012 Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hanson, Rix, and Abbruzzese. Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 4 ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes the claim limitations. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES Facts Related to the Prior Art Hanson 01. Hanson is directed to providing a vehicle insurance claim management application (VICMA) that will improve communication and streamline tasks between a vehicle repair shop and an insurance company in three general task groups: assignment management (comprising work request, estimates/photos, and reinspections), financial management, and performance measurement. Hanson 1:21-28. 02. Hanson describes communicating data between an insurer and a non-referral repair shop, e.g., vehicle repair shops that are normally not preapproved by the insurer to perform the estimating and repair work. Hanson 2:12-15. 03. Hanson describes adapter module to translate data between the application and a vehicle repair estimating system. Hanson also describes a non-referral module to receive a set of estimate data from the non-referral vehicle repair shop. Further, the non-referral module may determine a rules-based intelligence score based on Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 5 the estimate data, wherein the rules-based intelligence score is defined as low-range, mid-range, or high-range. The non-referral module may also determine an intervention level for the estimate based on the rules-based intelligence score. Hanson 2:19-42. 04. Hanson describes adapter module to translate data between the application and a vehicle repair estimating system. Hanson also describes a non-referral module to receive a set of estimate data from the non-referral vehicle repair shop. Further, the non-referral module may determine a rules-based intelligence score based on the estimate data, wherein the rules-based intelligence score is defined as low-range, mid-range, or high-range. The non-referral module may also determine an intervention level for the estimate based on the rules-based intelligence score. Id. 05. Hanson describes insurance company offering assignments to the vehicle repair shop for either repairs or estimates as part of the first notice of loss (FNOL) process. After the vehicle repair shop has been offered the assignment and submitted the estimate, the vehicle repair shop typically completes the corresponding repairs upon approval by the insurance company and absent any special circumstances. Hanson 7:27-33. 06. Hanson describes transferring assignment data to a vehicle repair estimating system. This may include transferring the claim files assigned to the vehicle repair shop by the insurance company. The claim processing system may transfer or pre-load data into the shop application estimating database by extracting information from the insurance company data and populating the necessary Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 6 fields in the shop database or claims database, while generating an assignment request. The assignment request may include information about the claim and the estimate. Hanson then describes transferring and translating the assignment data (e.g., estimate) to and from the vehicle repair estimating system. If the customer's vehicle was inspected by the insurance company (e.g., drive-in, etc.), the vehicle repair shop may receive the estimate as part of the transferred claim file. The estimates may then be directly transferred to the vehicle repair shop's estimating system for further processing. The processing may include viewing and verifying the estimate or modifying and sending a revised estimate through the claim processing system back to the insurance company system. In the case where the customer goes directly to the vehicle repair shop, the vehicle repair shop creates an estimate. Once the estimate is created, the vehicle repair shop provides the insurance company system with the estimate by transferring the estimate through the claim processing system where it may be translated through an adapter module into a form acceptable by the insurance company. Hanson 8:25-59. Rix 07. Rix is directed to auditing of vehicle collision estimates. Rix para. 2. 08. Rix describes a vehicle collision estimate audit system to identify repair estimates outside a statistical audit range, where the statistical audit range is determined by repair indices which are Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 7 generated from past paid insurance claim information. Rix para. 22. 09. Rix describes a statistical analysis engine which houses a plurality of repair indices where the plurality of repair indices are utilized to assist in generating the audited repair estimate. Rix para. 26. Abbruzzese 10. Abbruzzese is directed to work management. Abbruzzese 1:13- 15. 11. Abbruzzese describes the actual processing of a claim beginning with the receipt a notice of loss usually on a standardized form. After a standardized notice is scanned, it is sent to an Optical Character Recognition Device (“OCR”) which reads the information in pre-defined zones on the form and places it in the appropriate fields in a Loss Claim database table. Abbruzzese 3:37-43. 12. Abbruzzese describes documents being set up with alphanumeric identifiers in predetermined locations on the documents. These documents, when returned with the requested information, are scanned into the system and routed to the OCR where the identifiers are read. This permits automatic classification and/or identification of the received information allowing it to be routed to a specific electronic address without going through a mail queue. Abbruzzese 10:5-13. 13. Abbruzzese describes an incoming fax image being routed to an Optical Character Recognition Device (“OCR”). The OCR Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 8 converts images to ASCII data based on its recognition of multiple text fonts. The OCR can read information from any image in the system which is in a preset form, not just faxes. Abbruzzese 14:62-67. 14. Abbruzzese describes all Loss Notices being routed to the Prescreener’s Queue. This is because Loss Notice information must be manually input from the image or, if read by the OCR, reviewed for accuracy. Abbruzzese 71:63-67. 15. Abbruzzese describes the OCR converting the image data within the template zones to text. Abbruzzese 81:3-5. ANALYSIS Claim Construction We initially construe the term “estimate” recited in the claims. In particular, we construe what the estimate is for. Independent claim 9 does not recite what it is for, but it does recite that it includes a loss type. Although estimate is not lexicographically defined, the Specification says that the invention is directed to estimates for repairing, replacing, or otherwise compensating for damaged properties or other losses. Spec. para. 2. Thus we construe the term “estimate” as an estimate for loss compensation and repair or replacement. Thus an estimate is part of risk of loss mitigation. We next construe “converting the image data into text data.” Claim 9 limitation 4. This in turn begs the question of what such image data images. None of the claims further specify the nature of the image data or such Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 9 conversions. Of the eight instances of “convert” or “conversion” in the Specification, only the four instances in paragraphs 73 and 104 put this in the context of image data. In those instances, the image is that of a written textual estimate stored in image format. So the conversion recited in the claims is conventional optical character recognition of an image of the estimate as stored in an image file, and we construe it as such. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 13 Claim 9, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP 2 The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . . determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure 3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 10 that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. STEP 2A Prong 1 At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method claim 9 recites receiving and storing estimate data, analyzing and converting image data of an estimate and then analyzing the estimate data, completing some generic action, and generating and transmitting a report. Converting data is analyzing and modifying data. A generic action is data processing. Thus, claim 9 recites receiving, storing, analyzing, modifying, processing, generating, and transmitting data. None of the limitations recites Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 11 technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. From this we see that claim 9 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are fundamental economic principles or practices. Like those concepts, claim 9 recites the concept of managing risk. Specifically, claim 9 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to analyze and report on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria. The advice to analyze and report on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria involves compensating for loss, which is a risk mitigation act, and analyzing a loss estimate, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of insurance. For example, claim 9 4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 12 recites “receiving . . . a submitted estimate . . . comprising a plurality of line items and corresponding to a loss type,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is mitigating risk of loss. Similarly, claim 1 recites “analyzing the submitted estimate,” which is also characteristic of managing risk of loss. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to receiving and storing an estimate, analyzing the estimate data and submitted image data, converting the image data into test, determining whether the estimate meets a predetermined requirement and generating a report containing the determination which is then transmitted. Final Act. 5. The preamble to claim 9 recites that it is an automated estimate quality assurance review method. The steps in claim 9 result in managing risk by analyzing and reporting on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitation 1 recites receiving data. Limitations 2-8 recite generic and conventional receiving, storing, analyzing, modifying, processing, generating, and transmitting of risk loss data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for analyzing and reporting on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria. To advocate analyzing and reporting on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to estimates for repairing, replacing, or otherwise compensating for damaged properties or other losses. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 13 that claim 9 recites managing risk. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. This in turn is an example of fundamental economic principles or practices as a certain method of organizing human activity because managing risk is a fundamental economic practice. The concept of managing risk by analyzing and reporting on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria is one idea for managing the cost of such mitigation. The steps recited in claim 9 are part of how this might conceptually be premised. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. See Bilski above. Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, storing, analyzing, modifying, processing, generating, and transmitting data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 9, unlike the claims found non- abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, storage, analysis, modification, processing, generation, and transmission and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 9 recites receiving, storing, analyzing, modifying, processing, Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 14 generating, and transmitting data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 9 recites managing risk by analyzing and reporting on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria, which is one of fundamental economic principles or practices, one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 9 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted). Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Step 1 is a pure data gathering step. 7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 15 Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 2 and 6 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Steps 7 and 8 are insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 3-5 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 9 simply recites the concept of managing risk by analyzing and reporting on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation. Claim 9 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing risk by analyzing and reporting on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria under different scenarios. It does not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. 8 The Specification describes a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet, a smart phone, or an equivalent device. Spec. para. 91. Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 16 Instead, claim 9 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing risk by analyzing and reporting on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 9 is directed to achieving the result of managing risk by advising one to analyze and report on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to fundamental economic principles or practices, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 17 STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 9 provides an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo step two. the 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. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “ ‘to a particular technological environment.’ ” Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted). “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for receiving, storing, analyzing, modifying, processing, generating, and transmitting data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval-one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 18 computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 9 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-storage-analysis- modification-processing-generation- transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), 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), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 19 controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 9 is representative. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. As to the structural claims, they are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’ Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the fundamental economic principles or practice of managing risk by advising one to analyze Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 20 and report on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Final Act. 3-11 and Answer 29-33 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Appellant respectfully submits the conclusory statement that the claim “is a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” is not reasonable in light of the text of the claims and is too vague for the Appellant to properly respond. Furthermore, the Answer provides no reasonable explanation as to how the claims fail to recite a judicial exception. Reply Br. 2. Appellant does not explain why this is so and makes a conclusory argument. A complete analysis of why the claims are drawn to abstract ideas is shown above. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “it is apparent from the Answer that the claims as a whole were not considered in the rejection.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant italicizes the text of a claim that the Examiner did not explicitly transcribe in the analysis. But considering the claims as a whole is not an act of analyzing each and every term. Rather it is considering what the claim as a whole is directed to. Then each limitation is considered separately as well. Such an analysis is presented above. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[n]ot one of the features recited in claim 1 mentioned in the Answer’s section under Step 2A, Prong One can be said to fall within the enumerated judicial exception. Claims 9 and 19 recite the same or similar features.” Reply Br. 5. Appellant Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 21 recites each of the claim limitations and for each limitation contends it is not a judicial exception. Reply Br. 3-5. But all of the limitations are drawn to steps for managing risk by advising one to analyze and report on a risk loss estimate based on various criteria, which is directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the fundamental economic principles or practice of managing risk. Appellant essentially repeats the above arguments under the rubric of Step 2A Prong Two. Reply Br. 5-6. These arguments are equally unpersuasive here. Appellant argues the Examiner failed to consider all the claim limitations under the rubric of Step 2A Prong Two. Reply Br. 5-6. These arguments are equally unpersuasive here. Appellant goes on to question whether the Examiner considered any claim limitations under Step 2 B. Reply Br. 7. Such consideration is discussed above. As to separately argued claims 6 and 8 (Reply Brief 7-8), claim 6 recites an additional data query and decision whether to accept a result, and claim 8 recites a file format conversion. Data queries, decision steps, and OCR file conversion (see claim construction above) are all equally conventional and generic computer operations, devoid of technological implementation details. At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea. Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 22 Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hanson, Rix, and Abbruzzese We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the art fails to describe limitations 3-5.9 Appeal Br. 17. Abbruzzese describes the image analysis and conversion limitations as optical character recognition. As this is the only form of such analysis and conversion described in the Specification, this is the extent of Appellant’s possession of these limitations. See Claim Construction above. Hanson describes a reason for applying such OCR in describing conversion of data to a required format. Beyond that, anyone whoever had an accident requiring insurance compensation is all too aware that estimates are often hand written, and OCR is notoriously well known for converting scanned manual documents into computer readable format. Hanson also describes making a determination as to how to proceed with the estimate based on the estimate itself and other data entered into its system. It was at least predictable that some of this data would have come with the estimate and other data would be entered by the operator. Although Appellant acknowledges that Abbruzzese describes the image analysis and conversion limitations, Appellant argues that OCR is not equivalent to the claimed feature of “make a determination as to whether the received estimate meets a predetermined requirement, wherein the determination is based 9 Although the arguments refer to claim 1, the limitations in claims 1 and 9 line up accordingly. Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 23 at least in part on the received estimate, the text data, and at least one piece of information not included in the received estimate or the text data.” Appeal Br. 17-18. But Hanson describes this instead. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Hanson fails to describe limitations 7 and 8 of generating and transmitting a report. Appeal Br. 18. But Hanson fills in data fields and transmits the result to a user. This combination is within the scope of generating and transmitting a report. Appellant goes on to contend that the report does not relate to any determination as to whether the received estimate meets a predetermined requirement. Id. But Hanson describes processing that includes viewing and verifying the estimate. Such verification is necessarily against predetermined requirements for approval, as insurance companies are notorious for predefined procedures. As to separately argued dependent claims 6, and 7, reciting deciding whether to accept the received estimate for automated quality assurance review and whether the received estimate meets a minimum data threshold respectively, such decisions were at least predictable in an insurance context. Both are examples of routine business judgment calls, and it was predictable to program any routine business judgment call into an automated information management system. Appeal 2021-002534 Application 15/606,475 24 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hanson, Rix, and Abbruzzese is proper. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Refernce(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 101 Eligibility 1-20 1-20 103 Hanson, Rix, Abbruzzese 1-20 Overall Outcome 1-20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2020). AFFIRMED