CoreLogic Solutions, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2022

2021003293 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 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. 15/365,777 11/30/2016 Bryan Mark Logan CLOGI.077A2 3446 101850 7590 03/11/2022 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP (CLOGI) CORELOGIC 2040 Main Street, Fourteen Floor Irvine, CA 92614 EXAMINER WHITE, LANCE WILLIAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2022 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): efiling@knobbe.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com jayna.cartee@knobbe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRYAN MARK LOGAN, SUSAN HARPER ALLEN, DAVID BORILLO, and ROBERT CARPENTER __________________ Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-13, and 15-34, which are all of the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Corelogic Solutions, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 2 and 14 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. (Claims App.) 15, 17; Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed system and process improve the speed and efficiency of property studies such as appraisals by predicting and combining studies for property locations in the same geographical region when they arrive within a threshold time period of each other. Id. ¶¶ 1, 14, 52. Bundling appraisals for a region and time period reduces the need to send multiple appraisers to visit and photograph a property or area in the same time period. Id. ¶ 9. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 recites a system as follows: 1. A system for processing appraisal orders, the system comprising: a database of historical appraisal order data that specifies, for each of a plurality of appraisal orders, at least a geographic location and a time associated with the appraisal order; and a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, the computing system programmed to process a newly received appraisal order by a process that comprises: determining a geographic location associated with the newly received appraisal order; generating, based on the database of historical appraisal order data, data reflective of a probability that another appraisal order will be received within a threshold time period that corresponds to the geographic location associated with the newly received appraisal order; based at least partly on said data reflective of a probability, delaying processing of the newly received appraisal order, wherein delaying processing of the newly received appraisal order comprises maintaining data in a queue; while processing of the newly received appraisal order is delayed, receiving a second appraisal order that corresponds to the geographic location associated with the newly received appraisal order, and creating a link between the second appraisal order and the newly received appraisal order, wherein the link causes a Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 3 scheduling component of the computing system to bundle the second appraisal order with the newly received appraisal order in generating appraiser workflows; and selecting an appraiser to which to assign the newly received appraisal order and the second appraisal order, wherein selecting the appraiser comprises looking up appraiser attributes, including appraiser qualifications, of a plurality of appraisers, and selecting the appraiser based at least partly on the appraiser attributes. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 13, 15-18, 21, 23-28, and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Thomas,3 Carmi,4 Kinsey, II,5 Emigh,6 and Burgh.7 Claims 7, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, Burgh, Donahue,8 and Thulson.9 Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, Burgh, and Donahue. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, Burgh, and Thulson. Claims 29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, Burgh, and Pershing.10 3 US 8,433,650 B1, issued April 30, 2013. 4 US 2006/0111957 A1, published May 25, 2006. 5 US 2014/0136443 A1, published May 15, 2014 (hereinafter “Kinsey”). 6 US 7,818,317 B1, issued October 19, 2010. 7 US 2009/0048890 A1, published February 19, 2009. 8 US 2005/0144028 A1, published June 30, 2005. 9 US 2017/0039641 A1, published February 9, 2017. 10 US 2014/0279593 A1, published September 18, 2014. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 13, 15-18, 21, 23-28, and 30-33 Rejected over Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, and Burgh Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, the Examiner finds that Thomas teaches a system and process that generate, based on a database of historical appraisal order data, data reflective of another appraisal order that corresponds to the geographic location associated with the newly received appraisal order. Final Act. 3-9, 36-38. The Examiner cites Carmi to teach “data reflective of a probability that another appraisal order will be received within a threshold time period.”11 Id. at 10-16, 38. The Examiner cites Kinsey to teach selecting an appraiser to which to assign the newly received and second appraisal orders. Id. at 16-19, 38-38. The Examiner cites Emigh to teach improving the efficiency of completing tasks at a particular completion location (property). Id. at 21-25. The Examiner cites Burgh to teach optimizing a sequence and pairing orders by using location, historical data, availability, and real-time information. Id. at 29-33. Appellant argues that Thomas does not teach a database of historical appraisal order data used to generate data regarding another appraisal order, and cited portions of Thomas do not mention appraisal data. Appeal Br. 5. We agree with the Examiner that Thomas teaches databases including appraisal information that can be used to generate an appraisal report and can be made available for further functions to be performed with appropriate documents and information. Final Act. 3-4 (citing Thomas, 34:28-44); Ans. 25-26 (Thomas, 16:10-56, 34:27-60). We adopt that finding as our own. 11 Claim 13 recites ‘data reflective of a probability that, within a threshold time period, another property study order will be received for a property falling in the geographic region.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 5 Appellant also argues that Thomas does not use a computer system database to generate data regarding another appraisal order such as a yet-to- be-received appraisal order and predicting whether another appraisal order will be received within a threshold time period, and Carmi uses historical performance patterns of service providers to predict whether a delay by a service provider is statistically likely to propagate to and impact one or more other scheduled appointments. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant further contends that Carmi’s focus on delays and statistical probabilities of further delays does not determine a probability that an order will be received within a threshold time period as claimed. Id. at 5-6; Reply Br. 5-6. We agree. Carmi stores and analyzes historical appointment performance data of service providers to determine historical performance patterns by geographic location and time of day and/or year in order to determine whether a delay associated with one order will propagate to cause delays in later-scheduled appointments. Carmi ¶¶ 20, 22, 25, 41, 48, 52; see Final Act. 10-12; Ans. 28-29. Carmi does not generate data reflective of a probability that a new service appointment will be received within a threshold time for a particular geographic location as claimed. Carmi instead focuses on appointments that already are scheduled to predict whether a later-scheduled appointment will be affected by a delay in an earlier-scheduled appointment. Combining Carmi’s delay prediction with Thomas’ appraisal system would result in delaying scheduled appointments based on a likelihood that a delay in an earlier-scheduled appraisal will propagate to later-scheduled appraisals in order to “help improve scheduling efficiency and optimization based on historical information and patterns associated with geographic location data and time data” as the Examiner determines. Final Act. 15-16. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 6 Yet, the Examiner has not explained how combining the teachings of Thomas’s system that allows appraisers to generate and store appraisals with Carmi’s dynamic scheduling system that analyzes historical service provider appointments to determine whether a delay in a service appointment will propagate to later appointments in a location for a particular time period also teaches or suggests “generating, based on the database of historical appraisal order data, data reflective of a probability that another appraisal order will be received within a threshold time period that corresponds to the geographic location associated with the newly received appraisal order” as recited in claims 1 and a similar feature in claim 13. See Appeal Br. 15, 17 (claims 1, 13); Appeal Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 5. The claims thus predict whether a second appraisal order will be received within a threshold time of a newly received appraisal order, but Carmi predicts delays in scheduled appointments. In the claimed system, the prediction pertains to a second order that has not been received, and neither order is scheduled so there is no delay to predict. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 or their respective dependent claims 3-6, 8, 9, 15-18, 21, 23-28, and 30-33 as reciting an abstract idea as identified above without significantly more. Rejections of Claims 7, 10-12, 19, 20, 22, 29, 34 Appellant argues the patentability of claims 7, 10-12, 19, 20, 22, 29, and 34 because they depend from independent claim 1 or 13. See Appeal Br. 13-14. Because we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13, and because the Examiner’s reliance on Donahue, Thulson, and/or Pershing to teach features of the dependent claims does not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 13, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 10-12, 19, 20, 22, 29, and 34. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 7 NEW GROUND OF REJECTION We enter a new ground of rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217-18. The USPTO has issued guidance for this framework. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”);. To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.12 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. 12 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 8 If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim (3) provides an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Statutory Subject Matter / Revised Guidance Step 1 Claims 1, 3-12, and 23-29 recite a system, which is within a statutory category of a machine, and claims 13, 15-22, and 30-34 recite a process, which is a statutory category of invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One We determine that claims 1, 3-13, and 15-34 recite limitations, the focus of which is on certain methods of organizing human activity involving commercial or legal interactions, business relations, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. In addition, many of the limitations recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind by observation, opinion, evaluation, and judgment, or mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. Id. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality without any technical implementation details to take them out of the abstract realm. Id. meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 9 Claims 1 and 13 recite the same or similar subject matter. We select claim 1 as representative and analyze features of the abstract idea in the dependent claims. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Put another way, the system claims 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.”); see also Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Because the system claim and method claim contain only ‘minor differences in terminology [but] require performance of the same basic process,’ . . . they should rise or fall together. . . . While it is not always true that related system claims are patent-ineligible because similar method claims are, when they exist in the same patent and are shown to contain insignificant meaningful limitations, the conclusion of ineligibility is inescapable.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Regardless of what statutory category (“process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.”). The claims focus on organizing and managing activities of appraisers and other persons who provide property reviews for commercial interactions by limitations that collect data, analyze, and process that data to generate an output (link) that can be used to organize (bundle) multiple appraisal orders of appraisers. Thus, these limitations organize appraiser workflow activities as does the final limitation of collecting further data concerning appraiser’s attributes and qualifications to use to assign them to particular appraisals. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 10 The application title, COMPUTER-BASED CONTROL OF TIMING WITH WHICH PROPERTY REVIEW ORDERS ARE PROCESSED, reflects this focus as does the preamble of claim 1, which recites a “system for processing appraisal orders.” Spec. p. 1; Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The preamble of independent claim 13 recites “[a] computer-implemented process for controlling a timing with which a first property study order is processed.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Thus, the claimed advance is a system and process that controls the timing of the processing of property orders that are received, namely, so they can be combined and processed together (bundled) and assigned to the same appraiser who can complete the appraisals in the same time period for the same location or area. According to the Specification, real estate property appraisals are conducted by self-employed appraisers or business entities that employ and assign multiple appraisers to appraise properties sometimes by geographical area. Spec. ¶ 2. This organization of the commercial activities of appraisers can lead to inefficiencies when different appraisers visit and photograph the same property in a short period of time, or the same appraiser travels to the same remote neighborhood multiple times in a short time period. Id. ¶ 9. The system improves efficiency by organizing appraiser workflow to reduce the cost and time to complete appraisals by bundling orders that can be processed together based on the proximity of the properties. Id. ¶ 14. When a new appraisal order is received, appraisal bundling and scheduling component 42 uses a database of historical appraisal order data to predict the likelihood that another appraisal order will arrive within a threshold time period (e.g., hours) and be capable of bundling with the newly received order, e.g., by being for properties within a threshold distance. Id. ¶¶ 14, 51. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 11 Consistent with this focus, claim 1 recites a system that first collects historical appraisal activity data in a database and newly received appraisal orders to determine a geographic location of the newly received appraisal order. The system analyzes the historical appraisal activity data to generate “data reflective of a probability that another appraisal order will be received within a threshold time period that corresponds to the geographic location [of] the newly received appraisal order,” and “based at least partly on said data reflective of a probability, delaying processing of the newly received appraisal order [by] maintaining data in a queue.” Appeal Br. 15 (claim 1). The system then collects (receives) more appraisal data in the form of a second appraisal order that corresponds to the geographic location of the newly received appraisal order and links those orders so they can be bundled together to generate appraisal workflows. Finally, the system selects an appraiser based on the appraiser’s attributes. See id. (claim 1). The description of these steps indicates that they recite the abstract idea identified above. A database of historical appraisal order data 46 stores appraisal orders by location and associated time. Spec. ¶¶ 14, 50. Thus, the Specification describes the database at a high level of generality without any technical details, i.e., only to the extent it collects and organizes appraisal activity data. Such data can be collected and organized as a mental process. Determining a geographical location associated with the newly received appraisal order simply determines the location of the property for which a new order was received. See Spec. ¶¶ 51, 52. Such activity can be performed as a mental process by a person determining where a property to be appraised is located, and it organizes the appraisal process and activities by classifying/filtering an appraisal order by geographic location. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 12 Using the historical appraisal data in the database to generate “data reflective of a probability that another appraisal order will be received within a threshold time period that corresponds to the geographic location [of] the newly received appraisal order” simply processes this data at a high level of generality without any technical details to generate more data. Claim 1 does not recite how the probability is calculated. The Specification indicates that “the probability can be calculated in various ways.” Spec. ¶ 52. For example, the probability can be calculated without regard to the timing with which the historical orders were received over the relevant time period. Alternatively, the process may use an algorithm that accounts for seasonal cycles or trends in the data; for example, if the new order is received during a particular day of the week or month of the year in which appraisal rates are relatively high, the probability calculation may account for this. The probability calculation may also give more weight to recent historical data ( e.g., orders received over the last month or N months) than to older historical data, so that population density changes and recent appraisal treads are better reflected. Spec. ¶ 52. The lack of technical details indicates that a person can generate such data reflective of a probability as a mental process using knowledge of the seasonal cycles or trends or by using mathematical algorithms, both of which fall within a grouping of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance. Delaying processing of the new order by maintaining data in a queue is recited at a high level of generality without technical details such that it organizes this appraisal activity by steps that can be performed as a mental process by a person placing an order in a folder. The Specification indicates the calculated probability is compared to a threshold (e.g., 40%, 50%, 60%). If it meets or exceeds the threshold, the order is maintained in an “electronic queue.” Id. ¶ 53. No technical details are provided for the claimed “queue.” Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 13 Receiving a second appraisal order during this delay period for a geographic location associated with the new order and “creating a link” between the orders to cause a scheduling component to bundle the orders for “generating appraiser workflows” simply collects more data (orders), filtered by geographic location, and links the orders in some undefined way so they can be bundled and assigned to the same appraiser. Thus, it organizes the appraisal activities by receiving, linking, and bundling orders to organize the appraisal workflows of appraisers. “If the new order can be bundled with a pending order, the two orders are linked together (block 152) for purposes of assigning and/or scheduling the appraisals (block 160), such that the property visits to the associated properties are, or at least can be, performed by the same appraiser on the same day.” Id. ¶ 51. No technical details are claimed or described for linking appraisal orders. See id. ¶¶ 51, 53. Thus, these steps can be performed as mental processes by a person combining appraisal orders pertaining to the same geographical location so they can be assigned to the same appraiser to improve efficiency and reduce costs. The final step in claim 1 selects an appraiser for assignment of the new and the second linked appraisal orders based on appraiser attributes to include appraiser qualifications. Appraiser attributes include current or scheduled locations, work schedules, specialties handling specific types of properties, qualifications, and preferences for types and number of jobs to perform per day. Id. ¶ 47. As such, this step filters and organizes appraiser data by generic attributes and qualifications without any technical details. It organizes commercial interactions and business relationships of appraisers who appraise real estate properties. It can be performed as mental processes in the human mind by judgment, evaluation, and opinion. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 14 Such data processing steps have been held to recite an abstract idea. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[F]iltering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well- known method of organizing human behavior.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner by attaching classification data is a method of organizing human activity); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing and extracting certain data in the collection, and storing the data recite steps humans always have performed to organize such data and activity); see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The parsing and comparing of claims 1-3 and 9 are similar to the collecting and recognizing of Content Extraction . . . and the classifying in an organized manner of TLI . . . .”). Here, claim 1 similarly collects historical appraisal order data, new orders, second appraisal orders, and analyzes and filters that data by location and a time period threshold to “link” similar orders. These steps are recited at a high level of generality without technical implementation details. As such, they can be performed by a person as mental processes involving observation, opinion, evaluation, and judgment based on knowledge of seasonal cycles, trends, and the day of the week or month in which appraisal rates are high. Spec. ¶ 52. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 15 To the extent generating “data reflective of a probability that another appraisal order will be received within a threshold time period” uses some unclaimed, generic “algorithm” (see Spec. ¶ 52), it recites the same abstract idea. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[S]electing certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all abstract.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (“[W]e have 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.”); Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”). Nor does analyzing historical appraisal order data make claim 1 less abstract. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (whether labeled as a fundamental, long-prevalent practice or a well-established method of organizing activity, considering historical usage data while inputting data and parameters into a database slightly more detailed than a generic database does not make the claims non-abstract); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (analyzing log files and audit log data of human activity to get a full picture of user activity recites an abstract ideas even though limited to information of a particular content); In re Gale, 856 F. App’x 887, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (collecting and analyzing information and metadata to calculate a usage pattern, determine its compliance with a predetermined usage pattern, and report the results recites an abstract idea). Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 16 Nor does maintaining data in a generic “queue” make claim 1 any less abstract. See Mortg. Application Techs., LLC v. MeridianLink, Inc., 839 F. App’x 520, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[A] process that can be and has been performed by humans without the use of a computer, as the prosecution history shows here, is an abstract idea. . . . We have further held that information storage and exchange is an abstract idea even when it uses computers as a tool or is limited to a particular technological environment.”). In Mortgage Application, the online loan origination service included an application server to extract data from loan applications, a database server to receive that data and populate a form file, and a queue manager server that was configured to receive the loan application and hold it until the database server polled it at specified periodic time intervals. Id. at 522. The patentee argued that the claimed technology automatically took loan data, populated a database with that data, and automatically migrated the data to a source “all by automatic message queuing which keeps all interested parties advised.” Id. at 525. Message queuing simply stored populated documents until they were retrieved by a user. Id. Here, the system similarly stores the newly received appraisal order in a generic queue for a threshold time period until a second appraisal order for the geographic location is received within the time interval and linked to the new order. Appeal Br. 15 (claim 1). Creating a link between the orders simply associates the orders with one another so they can be bundled and assigned to the same appraiser. The orders are linked together for workflow scheduling, i.e., “for purposes of assigning and/or scheduling the appraisals.” See Spec. ¶ 51, Fig. 10 (blocks 152, 160). No technical details are described or claimed. A person can perform such step as a mental process by associating orders for scheduling. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 17 The dependent claims recite further features of the abstract idea at a high level of generality without any technical implementation details to take them out of the abstract realm. These additional features include selecting an amount of time to delay processing (claim 3), determining whether orders can be bundled (claim 4), data reflective of a probability is a probability value (claim 5), a time period (claim 6), different weights for past orders (claim 7), cyclical variations in timing (claim 8), receiving an instruction to delay from a human operator (claim 9), specifying a property sequence for an appraiser to visit (claim 10), providing a mobile application to display the workflow (claim 11), automatically adding uploaded photos to appraisal reports (claim 12), similar limitations dependent from claim 13 (claims 14- 24), appraiser attributes (claims 25-27 and 30-32), linking orders (claims 28 and 33), and designating a property as a comparable property (claims 29 and 34). When recited at this level of generality without technical details of their implementation, these processes can be performed as mental processes, and they organize the appraisal activities of appraisers and related data to include providing an application to display workflow, which recites extra- solution activity. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). Accordingly, we determine that claims 1, 3-13, and 15-34 recite the abstract idea identified above. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 18 Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two: We next consider whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We determine that the additional elements of a database, a computing system, a queue, a scheduling component, a link, and a mobile application do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are generic computers and other components used as tools to apply the abstract idea. They do not improve the functioning of computers or other technology. They do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition. They do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine integral to the claims. They do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The Specification describes each of the elements as generic computer components. Spec. ¶¶ 11-14, 50, 51-56, Figs, 1, 10. The mobile workflow application runs on mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops of appraisers. Id. ¶ 12. It presents appraisers with a personalized listing of properties to visit to collect photographs and information for generating appraisal reports. Id. An appraisal bundling and scheduling component 42 processes appraisal orders from lending institutions and uses a database of historical appraisal order data 46 to predict the likelihood that another order will arrive within a threshold time period (e.g., hours) to bundle with a new order and delay the task of assigning the appraisal if the probability is high enough. Id. ¶ 14. Thus, these elements simply implement the abstract idea. They do not represent improvements to computers or other technology. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 19 The database of historical appraisal order data 46 stores a history of the appraisal orders received by appraisal workflow platform 40 and the property locations associated with the orders. Id. ¶ 50. It is a generic database used to store a history of appraisal orders (data). Id. Appraisal workflow platform 40 also is described generically. Id. ¶ 14. It includes executable application components that improve efficiency of the appraisal process. Id. It implements the abstract idea without any technical details. The “queue” is described generically. If the calculated probability of another order arriving in a threshold time exceeds a probability threshold, the processing of the newly received order may be delayed “by holding it in an electronic queue.” Id. ¶ 53. If another order arrives during the period of the delay, it can be bundled with the delayed order, e.g., “the two orders will be linked together as described above with reference to block 152.” Id. The description of process flow for block 152 states, “[i]f the new order can be bundled with a pending order, the two orders will be linked together (block 152) for purposes of assigning and/or scheduling the appraisals (block 160), such that the property visits to the associated properties are, or at least can be, performed by the same appraiser on the same day.” Id. ¶ 51. No details are described for the queueing or the linking process to indicate that they improve computers or other technology. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We agree with the Apple petitioners that the claimed linking of orders to customers is a classic example of manual tasks that cannot be rendered patent eligible merely by performing them with a computer.”); Mortg. Application, 839 F. App’x at 525-26 (automatic message queuing automated a manual method that humans can and have performed without the use of a computer). Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 20 Essentially, the claimed system and process automate the workflow processing and assignment of appraisals to appraisers by delaying the processing of a new appraisal order when there is a probability of another appraisal order arriving for a property within the same location within a threshold period of time such that the new order and the other order can be bundled and assigned to the same appraiser. See Spec. ¶¶ 50-54, Fig. 10. They do so through a generic computer implementation without improving computers or other technology. Any improvements in efficiency or speed result from the generic computer implementation. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“But the need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem.”); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. . . . This is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself.”); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[M]ere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent- eligible.”); see also Spec. ¶¶ 25 (automatically upload photographs to finish reports faster with less manual work); 32 (the process of preparing appraisal reports may be partially or fully automated), 41 (appraisers can select comps manually), 57 (all processes described herein may be fully automated via program components described above or by specialized computer hardware). Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 21 Generating data reflective of a probability that another appraisal order will be received within a threshold time period for a geographic location of a newly received order as a probability value, time period, different weights, or cyclical variations in timing, without any technical implementation details means that any advance occurs solely in the realm of the abstract idea rather than in computers or other technology. As our reviewing court explained: Under Alice step one, the claims as a whole are directed to the concept of personal management, resource planning, or forecasting. See ’528 application ¶¶ 4, 7, 10; J.A. 27-28. As recited in the claims, the claimed “resource planning forecast product” collects and analyzes “non-business or business information relevant to the end user.” J.A. 27. This court has consistently treated inventions directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information as abstract ideas. . . . Downing is not claiming an improvement in Excel® spreadsheets or an improved resource planning computer technology. In re Downing, 754 F. App’x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“At best . . . Applicant’s methods are directed to organizing business or legal relationships in the structuring of a sales force (or marketing company).”). The claims implement the concept of combining appraisal orders that arrive within a threshold time for a geographic location so the combined orders can be assigned to the same appraiser. Businesses routinely combine orders and deliveries to the same property and area to promote efficiencies. The present claims implement this concept on generic computers without any improvement to computers or other technologies. The Specification’s description confirms this generic implementation of the abstract idea. Accordingly, we determine that the claims lack additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 22 Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B: We next consider whether the claims recite additional elements that, when considered individually or as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. This step is satisfied when the limitations involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in the industry. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367. Individually, the additional elements are conventional components that perform conventional functions. The computing system is programmed to perform steps of the abstract idea as a tool. The database stores historical appraisal order data. The queue holds data, and the link connects orders in some undefined way. See BSG, 899 F.3d at 1288 (improvements in speed and efficiency resulting from the use of historical usage information to organize database entries are benefits that flow from performing an abstract idea with a well-known database structure and do not improve the database functionality); SAP, 898 F.3d at 1169 (the claimed databases and processors are in the physical realm, but the claims and specification make clear that these limitations do not improve computer resources that InvestPic invented but just use already available computers with their already available basic functions as tools to execute the claimed process); Intellectual Ventures I v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1329, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he remaining limitations recite routine computer functions, such as sending and receiving information to execute the database search, e.g., receiving a request for information and delivering records.”; “The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component . . . that permits performance of the abstract idea.”). Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 23 As an ordered combination, the limitations recite no more than when they are considered individually. “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290-91. “It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” Id. at 1290; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (“Using a computer to create and maintain ‘shadow’ accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping-one of the most basic functions of a computer.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. . . . We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are ‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application’ of an abstract idea.”). The dependent claims recite further features of the abstract idea rather than improvements that provide significantly more or an inventive concept. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”); Apple, 842 F.3d at 1240-41 (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 24 Accordingly, we determine that claims 1, 3-13, and 15-34 are directed to a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 without significantly more. DECISION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1, 3-13, 15-34 101 Eligibility 1, 3-13, 15-34 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 13, 15- 18, 21, 23- 28, 30-33 103 Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, Burgh 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 13, 15-18, 21, 23-28, 30-33 7, 19, 22 103 Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, Burgh, Donahue, Thulson 7, 19, 22 10-12 103 Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, Burgh, Donahue 10-12 20 103 Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, Burgh, Thulson 20 29, 34 103 Thomas, Carmi, Kinsey, Emigh, Burgh, Pershing 29, 34 Overall Outcome 1, 3-13, 15- 34 1, 3-13, 15-34 This decision contains a new ground of rejection entered pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides: Appeal 2021-003293 Application 15/365,777 25 When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart. (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 1214.01 (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)