Conduent Business Services, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 5, 202014153305 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/153,305 01/13/2014 Alvaro E. Gil 20131499US01/16655243001 7689 145893 7590 05/05/2020 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP / CONDUENT PRINCETON PIKE CORPORATE CENTER 997 LENOX DRIVE BLDG. #3 LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648 EXAMINER CHOY, PAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/05/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): Conduent.PatentDocketing@conduent.com ipdocket@foxrothschild.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ALVARO E. GIL and JOHN C. HANDLEY ________________ Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JASON V. MORGAN, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–22. Claims 1–9 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 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 Conduent Business Services, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 2 Summary of the disclosure Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a “transportation service data assessment system” that groups data of a “matrix into clusters and presents the clusters on a display so that outliers are visually distinguished from clustered items, and so that redundant items are also visually apparent in the clusters.” Abstract. Representative claim 10. A method of assessing transportation service performance, comprising: by onboard data collection systems of one or more transit vehicles, by sensors installed at vehicle stops along a transit system route, or by both the onboard data collection systems and the sensors, collecting performance metrics for a plurality of route components of a transportation service along which the one or more transit vehicles are traveling; by a transportation service monitoring system: receiving, from the onboard data collection systems of one or more transit vehicles, from the sensors installed at vehicle stops along the transit system route, or from both the onboard data collection systems and the sensors, the performance metrics for the plurality of route components of the transportation service, and storing the received performance metrics as a data set in a data storage facility; and by a processor: accessing the data set comprising a plurality of performance metrics for each of the plurality of route components of a transportation service, receiving a selected set of operational data parameter labels, Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 3 retrieving, from the data set for each of a selected set of route components, performance metric values that correspond to the operational data parameter labels, constructing a two-dimensional performance metric matrix using the retrieved performance metric values, using the performance metric values of the two- dimensional performance metric matrix to construct a higher-dimensional matrix, detecting extreme outliers from data in the higher- dimensional matrix using robust principal component analysis, mapping the higher-dimensional matrix data to a coordinate matrix, grouping data elements of the coordinate matrix into clusters, and presenting the clusters on a display so that data elements that are non-extreme outliers are visually distinguished from data elements that are clustered, and extreme outliers are visually distinguished from both the clustered data elements and the non-extreme outliers. The Examiner’s rejection2 The Examiner rejects claims 10–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more. Final Act. 17–22. PRINCIPLES OF LAW To constitute patent-eligible subject matter, an invention must be a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, 2 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10–22. See Ans. 3; Final Act. 23–43. Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 4 or [a] new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. There are implicit exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified in 35 U.S.C. § 101, including: (1) laws of nature; (2) natural phenomena; and (3) abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The U.S. Supreme Court has set forth a framework for distinguishing patents with claims directed to these implicit exceptions “from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. at 217 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). The evaluation follows a two-part analysis: (1) determine whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea; and (2) if so, then determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the patent-ineligible concept itself. See id. at 217–18. Last year the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published guidance on the application of the two-part analysis. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”); see also USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (Oct. 17, 2019) (“Oct. 2019 Update”). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (see 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (step 2A, prong one)); and Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 5 (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see id. at 54–55 (step 2A, prong two); MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. ANALYSIS Step 2A, prong one The Examiner determines the limitations of claim 10 “are directed to an idea standing alone such as an uninstantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.’” Final Act. 17–18. That is, the Examiner determines that claim 10 recites “mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”—and thus recites an abstract idea. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The Examiner’s determinations are supported by the recitations of claim 10, which include at least: Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 6 (1) collecting performance metrics for a plurality of route components of a transportation service along which the one or more transit vehicles are traveling [i.e., collecting information]; (2) constructing a two-dimensional performance metric matrix using the retrieved performance metric values, using the performance metric values of the two-dimensional performance metric matrix to construct a higher-dimensional matrix, detecting extreme outliers from data in the higher-dimensional matrix using robust principal component analysis, mapping the higher-dimensional matrix data to a coordinate matrix, grouping data elements of the coordinate matrix into clusters [i.e., analyzing the information]; and (3) presenting the clusters on a display so that data elements that are non-extreme outliers are visually distinguished from data elements that are clustered, and extreme outliers are visually distinguished from both the clustered data elements and the non-extreme outliers [i.e., displaying certain results of the collection and analysis]. See Oct. 2019 Update at 7 (citing Elec. Power Grp, LLC v. Alstrom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We discuss the collection and displaying recitations of claim 10 in more detail under step 2A, prong two of the analysis, and focus here on the analysis recitations. Our reviewing court has “treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. In particular, steps that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper” are unpatentable mental processes. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The claim 10 analysis recitations relate to construction of matrices, detection of outliers, and grouping of data elements into clusters represent Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 7 steps that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using of pen and paper. This is evident in the Specification’s description of these steps, which illustrate mathematical algorithms to analyze collected data to distinguish among clustered data elements, outlier, and extreme outliers. See, e.g., Spec. Fig. 1, ¶¶ 30–33, 35–39. Such steps could be performed by a human using pen and paper. Moreover, few of the disclosed steps are recited. Instead the claim broadly recites the use of matrices and grouping. Although the claim nominally requires these steps to be performed by a processor, a computer implementation of a mental process is insufficient to take the invention out of the realm of abstract ideas. See Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”). For these reasons, the collection, analysis, and display steps of claim 10 represent mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind. Accordingly, claim 10 recites an abstract idea. Step 2A, prong two A claim that recites an abstract idea can still, as a whole, integrate the recited judicial exception into a patent-eligible practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55. However, such is not the case here. Appellant’s arguments focus on limitations that we determine are part of the judicial exception as discussed above; thus, these limitations are not “additional elements” that can impart patent eligibility to the claim. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 9–11; see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 8 (“USPTO guidance uses the term ‘additional elements’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.”); BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“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.”). Even assuming the limitations Appellant focuses on could be considered additional elements, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. For example, Appellant argues claim 10 requires “that extreme outliers be visually distinguished from data elements that are clustered, and that extreme outliers be visually distinguished from both the clustered data elements and the non-extreme outliers.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 3 (claim 10 “not only precisely delimits the type of data to be displayed, it also provides how the data must be displayed”). Thus, Appellant contends claim 10 provides “an improved display interface that enables a user to more quickly identify ways to improve operation of its transportation system.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the claimed presentation of clusters on a display—visually distinguishing data elements that are clustered, extreme outliers, and non-extreme outliers—does not improve the display or a computer, make a computer “operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As the Examiner correctly notes, such visual distinction, which can include using different colors or emphasis (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 36, 43), “is nothing more than displaying Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 9 different types of data on a screen, nothing but using the existing capability of any generic computer” (Ans. 7). Moreover, the use of different colors or emphasis has non-technological precedents (e.g., drawing with different colors of pen, marker, or chalk, or using different styles for emphasis). Thus, the invention of claim 10 is not “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer” technology. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appellant further argues the claimed method helps a “transportation service provider detect performance metrics that are redundant” or “eliminate one or more data monitoring stations and/or reduce the frequency of one or more monitored parameters.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 26, 34). Thus, Appellant argues that, like another claim found patent eligible, claim 10 improves display interfaces to “allow a user to more quickly access desired data stored in, and functions of applications included in, . . . electronic devices.” Id. at 9 (quoting Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the patent-eligible claims in Core Wireless were directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices that improved the efficiency of the electronic devices. See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. The Specification in Core Wireless confirmed the improvements were over “the prior art interfaces [that] had many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer, requiring a user ‘to scroll around and switch views many times to find the right data/ functionality.’” Id. The court found that the disclosure in the Specification regarding the improved speed of a user’s navigation through various views Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 10 and windows “clearly indicate[d] that the claims [were] directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens.” Id. In contrast to the claimed invention in Core Wireless, Appellant’s claim 10 is “focused on providing information . . . in a way that helps [a human] process information more quickly,” not on “improving computers or technology.” Trading Techs., 921 F.3d at 1384. That is, merely acquiring and organizing information is “an abstract idea, not an improvement in how computers and networks carry out their basic functions.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 20, 2018). Appellant further argues that claim 10, by reciting the use of “onboard data collection systems of one or more transit vehicles, by sensors installed at vehicle stops along a transit system route, or both” to collect performance parameter metrics and by reciting “a transportation service monitoring system” that receives the performance parameter metrics from the onboard data collection system limits claim 10 “to a particular system embodiment.” Appeal Br. 14–15; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner correctly notes, “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept.” Ans. 10 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588–89 (1978)); see also 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. “Like Electric Power, the purported advance ‘is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.’” Id. at 1385 (quoting Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). “[E]ven if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 11 content’ or a particular ‘source,’” this, alone, “does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2747 (2019), reh’g denied, 140 S. Ct. 27 (2019) (quoting Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353, 1355). Furthermore, neither claim 10 nor the Specification describes with particularity the onboard data collection systems, sensors, or transportation service monitoring system. See Spec. ¶ 27, Fig. 1. That is, the claim recitations generally link the use of the abstract idea (i.e., the mental processes) to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., transportation service monitoring). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. This is not enough to integrate the recited mental processes into a practical application. Id. We further determine claim 10 does not include an “additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” an additional element that implements or uses the mental processes with or uses the mental processes in conjunction with “a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim,” “an additional element [that] effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing,” or an additional element that applies or uses the mental processes in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the mental processes “to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 12 For these reasons, claim 10 does not integrate the claimed mental processes (i.e., an abstract idea) into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B The Examiner determines that (1) the claimed “sensors to collect data [are] directed to the use of insignificant extra solution activity,” (2) the claimed “data storage facility . . . storing the received data is directed to well-known, routine and conventional computer function[s]” and (3) the claimed “processor (computer) is recited at a high level of generality and its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises only a microprocessor and memory that simply perform computer functions, including data accessing/ retrieving, data receiving, data displaying, data manipulating and data transmitting between computers.” Final Act. 19–20. The Examiner determines that [w]hen the additional elements are taken as a combination, the processor for accessing data set from the data storage facility collected by the “onboard data collection systems” and the “sensors” (extra solution), accessing/retrieving the received data (known information) from memory (well-known computer component), manipulating the data in certain format, and transmitting the data to a display (well-known computer component) to visually present the information [represent] the steps of receiving, storing, accessing, retrieving, and presenting the clusters on a display [that are] merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. Id. at 20; see also Ans. 9–11. The Examiner thus determines “[t]he addition of a generic computer and the inherent functions (i.e., receiving, storing) are insufficient to transform the abstract idea of assessing transportation.” Final Act. 20–21 Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 13 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223). The Examiner further determines that “[l]ooking the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually, these elements fail to yield an[] improvement to the computer self or to another technology or technical field.” Id. at 21. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the additional limitations of claim 10 “as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.” Id. at 21–22. Appellant contends the Examiner erred by failing to provide “support demonstrating that the specific elements of claim 10 . . . are well- understood, routine and conventional.” Appeal Br. 12. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner does not show that it was conventional to present “the clusters [of data elements from a coordinate matrix] so that data elements that are non-extreme outliers are visually distinguished from data elements that are clustered, and extreme outliers are visually distinguished from both the clustered data elements and the non-extreme outliers.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they are based on the limitations of claim 10 directed to the patent-ineligible mental processes (i.e., to the underlying abstract idea), rather than the additional recitations of claim 10. Moreover, the use of pre-existing sensor, data storage, and processor technologies represent “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Spec. ¶¶ 27, 50–54, Fig. 9. Appeal 2019-001169 Application 14/153,305 14 For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 10 does not have additional recitations that, even when considered as an ordered combination, provide significantly more than the underlying mental processes (i.e., more than the abstract idea to which claim 10 is directed). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 10 is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 10, and claims 11–22, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 16–17. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 10–22 101 Eligibility 10–22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation