Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2022

2021003155 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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. 14/729,502 06/03/2015 John H. Yoakum 4366-993 8742 48500 7590 03/07/2022 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER CHOY, PAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2022 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): cjacquet@sheridanross.com edocket@sheridanross.com pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN H. YOAKUM, TONY MCCORMACK, and CYNTHIA S. MITCHELL ____________ Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 John H. Yoakum, Tony McCormack, and Cynthia S. Mitchell (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-21, 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 presenting performance metrics of a user and, in particular, of generating and presenting business activity performance metrics of the user in association with personal activity metrics of the user. Specification para. 1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method for providing information to a user, comprising: [1] automatically receiving, over a first period of time from a business server computing device by a personal computing device, a first plurality of business activity performance quantifiers3 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed October 26, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 12, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 10, 2021), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 26, 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 Avaya Inc. (Appeal Br. 2). 3 A business activity performance quantifier is defined as data representative of performance of a user with respect to business-related activities. Spec. para. 23. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 3 that quantify at least one business activity performance metric4 of the user over the first period of time, wherein business activity performance quantifiers represent the user’s performance of business-related activities; [2] automatically receiving, over the first period of time by the personal computing device from a wearable device worn by the user, a first plurality of personal activity quantifiers5 of the user that quantify at least one personal activity metric6 of the user over the first period of time, wherein personal activity quantifiers represent physical, personal, and/or health activities of the user; [3] automatically associating the at least some business activity performance quantifiers of the first plurality of business activity performance quantifiers with the at least some personal activity quantifiers of the first plurality of personal activity quantifiers within the first period of time; 4 A business activity performance metric is defined as a type of business activity quantified by business activity performance quantifiers. Spec. para. 25. 5 A personal activity quantifier is defined as data representative of physical, personal, and/or health activities of the user. Spec. para. 24. 6 A personal activity metric is defined as a type of personal activity quantified by personal activity quantifiers. Spec. para. 26. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 4 [4] generating, by the personal computing device, a dashboard view comprising a visual representation of the first plurality of business activity performance quantifiers and the first plurality of personal activity quantifiers relative to the first period of time; [5] presenting, by the personal computing device, the dashboard view on a display device; [6] automatically comparing the at least some business activity performance quantifiers to a business activity performance quantifier range of the user corresponding to a business activity performance metric of the at least one business activity performance metric; [7] automatically determining that the at least some business activity performance quantifiers are outside the business activity performance quantifier range; and [8] automatically transmitting an alert message to the wearable device worn by the user, wherein the alert messages comprises an indication that the at least some business activity performance quantifiers are outside the business activity performance quantifier range. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 5 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Bird US 2003/0036986 A1 Feb. 20, 2003 Bastien US 2008/0114608 A1 May 15, 2008 Dubois US 2009/0063209 A1 Mar. 5, 2009 Ding US 2009/0158402 A1 June 18, 2009 Sabet US 2016/0260044 A1 Sept. 8, 2016 Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabet, Bastien, and Dubois. Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabet, Bastien, Dubois, and Bird. Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabet, Bastien, Dubois, and Ding. 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. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 6 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES Facts Related to the Prior Art Sabet 01. Sabet is directed to assessing performance metrics. Sabet para. 2. 02. Sabet describes “performance assessment using performance analytics metrics system (PAM). PAM uses varied methods, processes and systems to collect, capture, classify, store, and manage performance data, and dynamically analyze, process and report personalized metrics using such data.” Sabet para. 21. 03. Sabet describes a continuous assessment of a person’s performance metric that is displayed on a hardware device in real time. The PAM analyzes and categorizes a person’s interactions from various inputs collected by the PAM application, and automatically generates a display to the person showing how the person’s time has been allocated over some duration and how that time allocation compares with other peers or persons. PAM uses the analysis from a person’s interactions to generate performance data, or feedback responses, specific to that interaction showing how the person performs in certain circumstances and how that performance compares with other peers or persons. The PAM can automatically categorize the interaction of the person in the specific activity. Sabet para. 23. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 7 Bastien 04. Bastien is directed to a performance evaluation system. Bastien para. 1. 05. Bastien describes a rating scale format and method, called “Step Rating Scale,” used to efficiently differentiate performances while significantly reducing rating errors and improving rating accuracy. Bastien para. 26. 06. Bastien describes a Step Rating Scale as made of a series of sequential descriptive constructed statements. Each one is called a “Standardized Level of Performance.” Bastien para. 31. 07. Bastien describes a Standardized Level of Performance as made of one or more descriptive constructed statements. Each one is called a Standardized Norm of Performance, that describes a specific level of performance of an important behavioral dimension. Bastien para. 33. 08. Bastien describes a Standardized Norm of Performance as constructed from an external, i.e., observable, component and a quantifiable component. Bastien para. 34. 09. Bastien describes differentiation of Standardized Levels of Performance as mainly obtained from the incremental degrees of performance expressed by the different quantifiers, for a Standardized Norm of Performance, or by the different combinations of Standardized Norms of Performance, for a Standardized Level of Performance. Bastien para. 46. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 8 Dubois 10. Dubois is directed to business performance measuring. Dubois para. 2. 11. Dubois describes automatic notifications when a performance measure goes outside of a user specified target range. Dubois para. 10. ANALYSIS Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 17 Claim 1, 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 7 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 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 9 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.” 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 1 recites receiving and associating quantifier data, generating and presenting view data, comparing quantifier data, determining whether data are outside a range, and transmitting message data. Associating data is generating data representing an association. Presenting data is displaying data. Determining whether criteria such as range criteria are met is rudimentary data analysis. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, generating, Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 10 displaying, analyzing, and transmitting data. None of the limitations recites 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 1 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 ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1) mathematical concepts,8 (2) certain methods of organizing human activity,9 and (3) mental processes.10 Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of managing personnel in commercial business. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to collect, present, and analyze business activity data for a business user. The advice to collect, present, and analyze business activity data for a business user involves generating business performance data, which is an economic act, 8 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 Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 9 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). 10 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 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 11 and collecting business activity data which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 1 recites “generating . . . a visual representation of the first plurality of business activity performance quantifiers,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is managing people with data. Similarly, claim 1 recites “receiving . . . personal activity,” which is also characteristic of collecting human resource management data. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to organizing human activity including fundamental economic practices relating to economy and commerce. Final Act. 11. The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is a method for providing information to a user. The steps in claim 1 result in managing personnel in commercial business by collecting, presenting, and analyzing business activity data for a business user absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 2 recite receiving data. Limitations 3-8 recite generic and conventional receiving, generating, displaying, analyzing, and transmitting of business activity data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for collecting, presenting, and analyzing business activity data for a business user. To advocate collecting, presenting, and analyzing business activity data for a business user is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to presenting performance metrics of a user and, in particular, of generating and presenting business activity performance metrics of the user in Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 12 association with personal activity metrics of the user. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites managing personnel in commercial business. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain method of organizing human activity because managing personnel in commercial business is a form of commercial interaction. The concept of managing personnel in commercial business by collecting, presenting, and analyzing business activity data for a business user is one idea for presenting information for such management. The steps recited in claim 1 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. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting, analyzing, and storing data). Alternately this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, generating, displaying, analyzing, 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 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, generation, display, analysis, 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) Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 13 (finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 1 recites receiving, generating, displaying, analyzing, and transmitting data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites managing personnel in commercial business by collecting, presenting, and analyzing business activity data for a business user, which is a commercial and legal interaction, 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 1 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.11 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). 11 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 14 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. Steps 1 and 2 are pure data gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 3-5 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Step 8 is insignificant post-solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 6 and 7 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 1 simply recites the concept of managing personnel in commercial business by collecting, presenting, and analyzing business activity data for a business user 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 1 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 spell out different generic equipment12 and parameters that might be applied using 12 The Specification describes a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a workstation, a server, or any other Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 15 this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing personnel in commercial business by collecting, presenting, and analyzing business activity data for a business user under different scenarios. It does not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing personnel in commercial business by collecting, presenting, and analyzing business activity data for a business user 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 1 is directed to achieving the result of managing personnel in commercial business by advising one to collect, present, and analyze business activity data for a business user, as computing device comprising a processor and capable of processing both data and suitable instructions. Spec. para. 73. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 16 distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, 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. STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 1 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. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 17 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, generating, displaying, analyzing, and transmitting data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval-one of the most basic functions of a computer. The limitation of a wearable device worn by the user is not a step, but a recitation of generic equipment and a contextual location, viz. a generic device somehow placed upon a user, which is another recitation of generic equipment. All of these 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 Am., 898 F.3d at 1168. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-generation- display-analysis-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 18 Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (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 Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that claim 1 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 1 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 Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 19 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 commercial and legal interaction of managing personnel in commercial business by advising one to collect, present, and analyze business activity data for a business user, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Final Action pages 10-15 and Answer pages 4-9 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “neither the Office Action nor the Examiner’s Answer specify under which enumerated sub-grouping certain methods of organizing human activity the recited claim features fall.” Reply Br. 2. The claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and legal interaction of managing personnel in commercial business by advising one to collect, present, and analyze business activity data for a business user, without significantly more. The analysis supporting this is above. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the pending claims improve the functionality of a personal computing device and/or a wearable device to provide a user with personalized information regarding the user’s performance (e.g., dashboard view), by at least associating the at least some business activity performance quantifiers of the first plurality of business activity performance quantifiers with the at least some Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 20 personal activity quantifiers of the first plurality of personal activity quantifiers within the first period of time[.] Reply Br. 3. The claims improve information, not a computer system. As the Court in Trading Technology said, “[t]he claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology. . . . The ‘tool for presentation’ here is simply a generic computer.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal citations omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the pending claims impose meaningful limits such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. For example, the pending claims do not attempt to monopolize all implementations of improving user performance.” Reply Br. 3. The claims recite no technological implementation details. Thus, the claims encompass any and all means for receiving, generating, displaying, analyzing, and transmitting the recited data. As the Court in OIP said, Nor does the claims’ recitation of “present[ing] [offers] to potential customers” and “gathering . . . statistics generated during said testing about how the potential customers responded to the offers” provide a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. These processes are well-understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities that do not make the claims patent eligible. . . . Like the claims in Mayo, which added only the routine steps of administering medication and measuring metabolite levels for the purposes of determining optimal dosage, here the addition of steps to test prices and collect data based on customer reactions does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 21 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the personal computing is an additional element recited in the pending claims that interacts with a wearable device, which is a particular machine that is integral to the claim. The wearable device is integral to the claim since, without implementing the wearable device, no information related to the user’s personal activity would be gathered. Reply Br. 4. Both a personal computer and wearable device are generic devices. No implementation details are recited. As determined above, reciting a wearable device does no more than recite a generic potential location for a generic device. The recitation is no more than that of an abstract idea with the command to apply it with generic equipment. This is insufficient to confer eligibility. See Alice above. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 15-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabet, Bastien, and Dubois We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Sabet reference is not directed to correlating how a person’s personal/physical condition correlates to their performance of job duties.” Reply Br. 5. See also Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner appears to be using the word “personal” to mean as pertaining to a person. Ans. 11. But a personal activity quantifier is defined as data representative of physical, personal, and/or health activities of the user. Spec. para. 24. The Examiner makes no determination showing the art as describing this use of the word “personal.” Claims 3 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabet, Bastien, Dubois, and Bird These claims depend from claims in the earlier rejection. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 22 Claims 11-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabet, Bastien, Dubois, and Ding These claims depend from claims in the earlier rejection. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabet, Bastien, and Dubois is improper. The rejection of claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabet, Bastien, Dubois, and Bird is improper. The rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sabet, Bastien, Dubois, and Ding is improper. Appeal 2021-003155 Application 14/729,502 23 CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1-21 is affirmed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-21 101 Eligibility 1-21 1, 2, 4-6, 8- 10, 15-21 103 Sabet, Bastien, Dubois 1, 2, 4-6, 8- 10, 15-21 3, 7 103 Sabet, Bastien, Dubois, Bird 3, 7 11-14 103 Sabet, Bastien, Dubois, Ding 11-14 Overall Outcome 1-21 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) (2011). AFFIRMED