Conduent Business Services, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 5, 2020

2019001169 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
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 Claims 1–9 are withdrawn.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