Ex Parte McMullen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201813830224 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/830,224 03/14/2013 Brian Richard McMullen 110654 7590 08/30/2018 Mahamedi IP Law LLP (Uber) 910 Campisi Way, Suite IE Campbell, CA 95008 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. UP-007 3469 EXAMINER BRADY, MARIE P. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 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): uspto@m-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN RICHARD MCMULLEN, MINA RADHAKRISHNAN, RY AN MCKILLEN, and AMOS BARRET0 1 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 21, 22, 25-30, and 33. Claims 3, 4, 8-20, 23, 24, 31, and 32 have been canceled. Final Act. 1-2; Appeal Br. 3. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Uber Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Mar. 14, 2013; Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed June 30, 2016; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Nov. 23, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 We affirm. Appellants' Invention The invention generally relates to "location-aware, mobile computing devices" for the "promotion of [transport] services" (Spec. ,r 1) and, more particularly, computer-readable media and methods for generating and applying promotions for use with transport services. The transport service promotion process (method) defines a geometric boundary (geofence) from map input (geometric/geographic data) received from a promoter, specifying locations on a map defining a geometric boundary and creates a promotion ( e.g., a fare reduction) linked to conditional parameters and the geofence, including: a start location for the transport service within a designated region (geofence ), and a destination location for the transport request within the geofence. The method receives a communication ( a request for a transport service) generated by a client application operating on the mobile computing device transmitted over a network. Spec. ,r,r 8-12, 20-23, 29-32, 39, 42, 49, 50, 52-55, 57----66; Abstract. Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method for generating and applying promotions for use with transport services, the method being performed by a transport arrangement system and comprising: providing, on a display of a computing device, a user interface that includes a map; Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed July 30, 2015, and Answer ("Ans.") mailed Sept. 23, 2016. 2 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 defining a geofence from map input provided by a promoter, the map input specifying at least three locations on the map which define a geometric boundary within a city; creating a record of a promotion which links a fare reduction to satisfaction of a set of conditional parameters, the set of conditional parameters including (i) a first conditional parameter which is satisfied when a start location for a transport service is within a designated region of the city; and (ii) a second conditional parameter which is satisfied when a destination location for the transport request is within the geometric boundary of the geofence; rece1vmg, over one or more networks from a mobile computing device of the first user, one or more communications, wherein the one or more communications includes a request for a transport service that is generated by a client application operating on the mobile computing device, wherein the request includes a corresponding start location based on a current location of the mobile computing device at a time the request is made; wherein the one or more communications also include a corresponding destination location that is different from the at least three locations used to define the geofence, but within the boundary of the geofence; determining that the transport service satisfies each conditional parameter of the set of conditional parameters for the record of the promotion, based on the corresponding start location and the corresponding destination location; and in response to determining that the transport service satisfies each of the set of conditional parameters, automatically applying the fare reduction for the transport service. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5-7, 21, 22, 25-30, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. 3 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in finding Appellants' claims were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101? ANALYSIS Appellants argue independent claims 1, 21, and 28 (as well as dependent claims 2, 5-7, 22, 25-27, 29, 30, and 33) together as a group with respect to the§ 101 rejection. See Appeal Br. 8-15. We select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 21, 22, 25-30, and 33. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner rejects claim 1 (and claims 2, 5-7, 21, 22, 25-30, and 33) under § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea-"generating and applying promotions for use with a transport service which is considered to be an abstract idea [in that the] activity is considered a fundamental economic practice"-and the claim does not "include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea." Final Act. 2. The Examiner further determines that the elements of the method (process), taken alone and in combination, execute "generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry." Final Act. 3. Also, the Examiner determines that the claim does not "effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a 4 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 particular technological environment." Final Act. 3. Additionally, the Examiner determines that the claim "merely amount[ s] to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea ... on computing devices," which in tum "amount to nothing more than ... a generic computer system." Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner further concludes, in the Examiner's Answer, that claim 1 recites a fundamental economic activity analogous to the claims found patent ineligible in buySAFE. See Ans. 5-6. Appellants contend the Examiner failed to provide a proper analysis to establish a prima facie case (under the first part of the Alice analysis) that the claims are directed to an abstract idea (see Appeal Br. 9-13) and the abstract idea identified by the Examiner is an "overly broad generalization" (Appeal Br. 12) of Appellants' invention (see Appeal Br. 10-12). See Appeal Br. 9- 13; Reply Br. 2-7. Appellants further contend claim 1 "provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself," "do[ es] affect improvement to a technological field of on-demand transport services," and "do[ es] more than link the abstract idea to the particular technological environment." Appeal Br. 13. Additionally, Appellants contend their claims are analogous to those found to contain patent-eligible subject matter in Enfzsh. See Appeal Br. 14--15. In their Reply Brief, Appellants contend the Examiner's rejection is faulty for a number of reasons: (1) the Examiner improperly analyzed claim 1 under the Alice step 1 test (see Reply Br. 2-3); (2) the Examiner disregarded Enfish, which is controlling case law (see Reply Br. 3--4); (3) the Examiner did not analyze the claims as a whole (see Reply Br. 4--6); (4) the Examiner did not support the assertion that the claims are directed to a fundamental economic practice and the claims are not analogous to those in buySAFE (see Reply Br. 6-7). Finally, Appellants 5 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 contend their claims are not directed to an abstract idea and amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. See Reply Br. 7-12. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77-80 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Assuming that a claim nominally falls within one of the statutory categories of machine, manufacture, process, or composition of matter, the first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts" (id.), e.g., to an abstract idea. For example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 23 55-57. If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo, 566 6 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 U.S. at 78-79). This second step is described as "a search for an "'inventive concept"'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ' ... significantly more than ... the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. at 2355 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. We, therefore, look to whether the claims describe a specific improvement of the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result that itself is the abstract idea. See Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Alice Step 1 Analysis Turning to the first step of the eligibility analysis, "the first step in the Alice inquiry ... asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. "The abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113 (1853)). "We therefore look to whether the claims ... focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. The Examiner finds independent claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of "generating and applying promotions for use with a transport 7 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 service." Final Act. 2. The Examiner further finds the claim describes a "contractual relationship" analogous to the claims in buySAFE (see Ans. 5- 6), which is a "fundamental economic practice." See Final Act. 2; Ans. 5---6 (referencing buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Conversely, the Appellants attack the Examiner's findings as being an inaccurate characterization, lacking support for the assertion that the claims are directed to a fundamental economic practice, and the Examiner's reasoning and analysis do not include sufficient substance to rise to the level of a prima facie showing. See Appeal Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2-7. Appellants also contend the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are analogous to the claims in Enfzsh. See Appeal Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 7-9. We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' claim 1 ( and the other pending claims) are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas or concepts. With respect to Appellants' prima facie case and evidentiary contentions, Appellants misconstrues the relevant law and precedent. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly noted that "the prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production." Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d. 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Therefore, the USPTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies the requirements of 3 5 U.S. C. § 13 2 by notifying the applicant of the reasons for rejection, "together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application." In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, a prima facie rejection need only 8 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 set forth the statutory basis of the rejection in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of§ 132. Id. Here, in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 21, 22, 25-30, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner analyzed the claims using the Mayo/Alice two- step framework, consistent with the guidance set forth in the USPTO' s "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility," 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), in effect at the time the rejection was made, i.e., on July 30, 2015. The Examiner notified Appellants of the reasons for the rejection "together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application." 35 U.S.C. § 132. See Final Act. 2-5. And, contrary to Appellants' assertions, in doing so, the Examiner set forth a prima facie case of unpatentability regarding patent-ineligiblity such that the burden shifted to Appellants to demonstrate that the claims are patent-eligible. Appellants ostensibly argue that evidentiary support ( comparative examples of cases having similar claims) is required to establish a prima facie case of patent-ineligibility-"the Examiner is required to identify prior case decisions or precedence ... which were deemed to be abstract and which pertained to 'promotions for use with a transport service.' See Enfish at 9-10." Appeal Br. 10-11 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36). We, however, are aware of no controlling precedent that requires the Office to provide factual evidence to support a finding that a claim is directed to an abstract idea. Although it may be useful in some circumstances to compare the claims at issue with those in earlier cases in which a similar issue of patent-eligibility has been decided, such a comparison, contrary to 9 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 Appellants' suggestion (see Appeal Br. 10-11 ), is not required for a prima facie showing. With respect to Appellants' characterization contentions, claim 1 delineates a method of "generating and applying promotions for use with transport services" ( claim 1 ). The method for generating and applying promotions is performed by a transport arrangement system, and includes steps of displaying a user interface including a map and defining a geofence (geometric boundary) using data (map input) provided by a promoter, where the data specifies three or more map locations. The method further includes the step of creating a promotion (promotion record) linking a fare reduction to satisfaction of a set of conditional parameters. The set of conditional parameters includes a first conditional parameter satisfied when a transport service start location occurs within a designated region and a second conditional parameter satisfied when a transport service end location ( destination location for the transport request) is within the geofence. The method also includes steps of: generating a request for the transport service using a client application operating on a mobile computing device, where the request includes a start location (based on a current location of the mobile computing device at a time the request is made) and a destination location; receiving the request communication from the mobile computing device; determining that the transport service satisfies each conditional parameter of the promotion (record of the promotion); and, in response to determining that the transport service satisfies each conditional parameter, applying the fare reduction for the transport service. In sum, as the Examiner concludes, claim 1 is directed to a series of steps for generating and applying 10 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 promotions for use with transport services, which is a fundamental economic practice, i.e., an abstract idea. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3---6. Although we could characterize claim 1 with more detail, for example, as being directed to communicating and manipulating or comparing data to effect a transfer of funds, this does not change the patent- eligibility analysis. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction .... The Board's slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis."). Utilizing the above-identified characterization, we analyze whether claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Instead of using a fixed definition of an abstract idea and analyzing how claims fit ( or do not fit) within the definition, "the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen - what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided." Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Appellants' claims generally, and independent claim 1 in particular, relate to collecting and communicating information and analyzing/manipulating information to generate a promotion ( a promotional offer), determine if the promotion criteria (parameters) are satisfied, and apply the promotion (see discussion supra). That is, Appellants' claims 11 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 relate to collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and communicating data utilizing un-recited processes or algorithms to provide a result (apply a promotion). Making promotional offers and fulfilling (applying) the promotion when it is accepted and satisfied (by a user) is a commercial transaction-a fundamental economic practice (see infra). Therefore, the claims broadly recite collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and transferring information (data) relating to fundamental economic activities (promotions). See Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 8-12. This is consistent with how Appellants describes the claimed invention. See Appeal Br. 4--5 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 9, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 42, 49, 50, 52-55, and 57-66). Contrary to Appellants' assertions (see Appeal Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 7-9), the present claims are directed to an abstract idea, in that the instant claims are analogous to a number of cases in which courts have identified similar claims as encompassing abstract ideas. Our reviewing court has held that abstract ideas include online commercial transactions and processing payments, which are fundamental economic practices. In Inventor Holdings, the Federal Circuit considered claims reciting, for example, "[a] method of processing a payment for a purchase of goods." Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit found those claims to be "manifestly directed to an abstract idea, ... accurately described as 'local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods."' Inventor Holdings, 876 F.3d at 1378. Further, the court opined that "[a]s we explained in [Dealertrack], the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility disallows the patenting of 'basic concept[ s],' such as 'processing information through a clearinghouse."' Id. ( quoting Dealertrack, Inc. v. 12 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Similarly, in buySAFE, the Federal Circuit considered claims reciting sending and receiving communications over a computer network to facilitate online commercial transactions. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court determined that "[t]he claims are squarely about creating a contractual relationship" (id. at 1355), and because contractual relations are "intangible entities" (id. at 1353) and "a fundamental economic practice" (id. at 1354) the claims were directed to an abstract idea. See buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353-55. The Federal Circuit further explained that the Supreme Court in both Alice and Bilski "relied on the fact that the contractual relations at issue constituted 'a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.'" Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); see Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2356, 2357. Our reviewing court has also held that abstract ideas include gathering, analyzing, and manipulating information. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (finding claims directed to a "combination of ... abstract-idea processes ... of gathering and analyzing information" to be abstract). Similarly, our reviewing court has held that abstract ideas include gathering, analyzing, and storing information. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC., 874 F.3d 1329, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding claims directed to the functional results of accumulating, converting, and monitoring records manipulate data "but fail[] to do so in a non-abstract way" (id. at 1338)); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1345--47 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding the "claims generally recite ... extracting data ... [and] recognizing specific 13 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 information from the extracted data" (id. at 1345) and that the "claims are drawn to the basic concept of data recognition" (id. at 1347)). In Credit Acceptance Corp., claims reciting financial transactions ( claims "directed to the abstract idea of processing an application for financing a purchase") were found to be directed to "a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce," similar to Inventor Holdings and buySAFE. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The court also held that automating previously manual processing of commercial transactions (loan applications) did not improve the functionality of a computer. According to the Federal Circuit, [ o ]ur prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. In those cases, "the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Credit Acceptance Corp., 859 F.3d at 1055 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354). In other words, combining abstract concepts, such as collecting and analyzing information relating to fundamental economic practices also results in claims directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. In the instant claims, specifically claim 1, the collection, analysis, manipulation, and communication of information ( data}--in the form of receiving map data (from a promoter), analyzing and manipulating that data to define a geofence, storing data (by creating/ generating a promotion record linking a fare reduction to satisfaction of a set of conditional parameters), and analyzing receiving information (a request for transport services from a mobile computing device) to determine if the conditional parameters of the 14 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 promotion are satisfied-are analogous to the abstract ideas of collecting, analyzing, and manipulating information discussed in Elec. Power, Two- Way Media, and Content Extraction. Further, generating and applying promotions is analogous to the fundamental economic practices found to be abstract ideas in Credit Acceptance Corp., Inventor Holdings, and buySAFE. Appellants' claims can also be distinguished from patent-eligible claims such as those in Enfish ( directed to "a specific improvement to the way computers operate." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336). Appellants' claims are directed to the results of data analysis and manipulation to generate and apply promotions ( a fundamental economic practice) rather than "a particular way of performing" or "inventive technology for performing those functions," i.e., "achiev[ing] these results in a non-abstract way." Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1337-38 (internal quotations omitted). In other words, "the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to the abstract ideas of collecting, analyzing, and manipulating information utilizing a computer, resulting in a fundamental economic practice. Notably, this characterization is consistent with Appellants' description of the claimed invention. See Spec. ,r,r 9 (the "promotion system can provide, on a display device, one or more user interfaces" enabling a promoter to create "promotions for a service" including "on-demand ... location-based[] services, and/ or transport services"), 16 ( the method "may be implemented, in whole or in part, on computing devices, such as mobile computing devices, access points, desktop computers, cellular or smart phones, laptop 15 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 computers, servers, or routers") and 17 (the method "may be implemented through the use of instructions that are executable by one or more processors"). Alice Step 2 Analysis Having found Appellants' claims are directed to an abstract idea under Alice's step 1 analysis, we next address whether the claims add significantly more to the alleged abstract idea. As directed by our reviewing court, we search for an "'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application."' McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312 ( quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). The implementation of the abstract idea involved must be "more than performance of 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry."' Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347--48 (alteration in original) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359). The "inventive concept" "must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer." BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, the Examiner determined that Appellants' claims do not add significantly more. See Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 7-11. Appellants, on the other hand, contend the claims are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea, inter alia, the "elements of Claim 1 (e.g., 'creating a record' that includes 'conditional parameters'; 'determining that the transport service satisfies each conditional parameter') are grounded in technology, and address a problem specific to on-demand transport services." Appeal Br. 14. Appellants further assert the instant claims "recite a specific discrete 16 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 implementation" that "requires the performance of an ordered combination of discrete and specific steps, many of which are individually unconventional," and "the ordered combination of claims elements is unconventional." Reply Br. 11 (citing BASCOM, 827 F.3d 1341 and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Appellants fails to persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection with respect to the second Alice step. Here, Appellants conflate the Alice two-part analysis and does not address the Examiner's findings. To the extent Appellants' arguments invoke DDR Holdings (see Reply Br. 10}-in that the instant claims improve the operation of a computer system-we disagree. In DDR Holdings, the court held that a claim may amount to more than an abstract idea recited in the claims when it addresses and solves problems only encountered with computer technology and online transactions, e.g., by providing (serving) a composite web page rather than adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257-59. In contrast, claim 1 simply transfers, analyzes, and manipulates data using known conventional computers and/or equipment, to generate and apply promotions. See supra; Spec. ,r,r 9, 16, 17. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (analogizing their claims to those in BASCOM), nothing in the claim recites a "specific improvement to the way computers operate" (supra). The communication, analysis, and manipulation of information to generate and apply promotions by conventional means, is not a solution to a technical problem as discussed in DDR Holdings. Rather, generating and applying promotions, are commercial solutions to conventional financial transactions, not a technical solution to a computer 17 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 or networking problem. This commercial solution may be assisted using a general purpose computer ( servers and mobile devices) to perform the data communication, collection, analysis, and manipulation processes, but does not improve how the computers themselves function. As we previously explained, the instant claims are more akin to the claims for analyzing information found to be abstract in Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353. We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations, separately, or as an ordered combination, do not provide meaningful limitations (i.e., do not add significantly more) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application. See e.g., Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 7-11. The claim merely recites functions (processes) for communicating, analyzing, and manipulating data using known conventional computers and/or equipment to effect commercial transactions (generating and applying promotions) based on the analyzed and manipulated data. Such steps are all routine and conventional and well-understood computer functions of a general processor. The Specification supports this view (see supra) in discussing the processes implemented using known ( conventional) mobile devices, networks, and generic computers (servers) to perform the recited data communication, analysis, and manipulation steps for the promotions. Such conventional computer and communication processes "do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter." Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256). For at least the reasons above, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 101 of independent claims 1, 21, and 28, as 18 Appeal2017-002563 Application 13/830,224 well as dependent claims 2, 5-7, 21, 22, 25-27, 29, 30, and 33, which were not argued separately. CONCLUSION Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 21, 22, 25-30, and 33, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 21, 22, 25-30, and 33. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation