2021001836 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 29, 2021

2021001836 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

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. 14/956,822 12/02/2015 Steven B. Adler RSW920140221US2 2335 138363 7590 09/29/2021 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. P.O. BOX 131851 DALLAS, TX 75313 EXAMINER TURNER, SHELBY AUBURN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2021 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): patdocket@winstead.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEVEN B. ADLER and HYMAN D. CHANTZ ____________ Appeal 2021-001836 Application1 14/956,822 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies “International Business Machines Corporation” as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE and ENTER A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION under (37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)). THE INVENTION Appellant states that “the present invention relates generally to detecting business anomalies, and more particularly to detecting business anomalies, such as compliance concerns, utilizing information velocity and other parameters using statistical analysis.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. A method for detecting business anomalies, the method comprising: monitoring a flow of network enterprise data; receiving compliance rules, wherein said compliance rules comprise business operational rules; analyzing said network enterprise data and compliance rules to identify entities and concepts to be placed in an ontology, wherein said ontology comprises a formal naming and definition of types, properties and interrelationships of entities, wherein said entities comprise individuals or documents utilized in connection with a business, wherein said concepts comprise ideas that form a substance of said ontology; representing said identified entities and concepts as multi-dimensional vectors, wherein elements of said multi- dimensional vectors comprise origin, destination, jurisdiction and classification; tracking updates, movements and access to said network enterprise data to determine information velocity and information acceleration associated with at least some of said elements of said multi-dimensional vectors, wherein said Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 3 information velocity captures a speed and a direction of said flow of network enterprise data concerning said elements of said multi-dimensional vectors, wherein said information acceleration captures a rate of increase in said flow of network enterprise data concerning said elements of said multi- dimensional vectors; discerning meaning from said network enterprise data using natural language processing as well as discerning meaning from said information velocity and said information acceleration; comparing said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration with historical and/or projected utilization of said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration to identify any differences; applying, by a processor, a statistical analysis based on said network enterprise data and said differences to generate a value corresponding to a prediction of a business anomaly; and performing an action indicating said business anomaly in response to said value exceeding a threshold. Appeal Br. 66–67 (Claims Appendix). THE REJECTION2 The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: 2 In the Advisory Action dated 7/30/20, the Examiner withdraws the obviousness double patenting rejection of claims 1–7 (Final Act. 26) because Appellant filed a terminal disclaimer. (Advisory Act. dated 7/30/2020). Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 4 Name Reference Date Kennis US 2006/0212486 A1 Sept. 21, 2006 Adler US 2010/0114630 A1 May 6, 2010 Dupont US 2014/0096249 A1 Apr. 3, 2014 The following rejections are before us for review. Claims 1, 2, and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kennis in view of Dupont. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kennis in view of Dupont, in further view of Adler. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION Independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part: comparing said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration with historical and/or projected utilization of said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration to identify any differences; [and] applying, by a processor, a statistical analysis based on said network enterprise data and said differences to generate a value corresponding to a prediction of a business anomaly. The Examiner found this limitation is disclosed by Kennis at paragraphs 20, 51, 132, 144, 219, and 272. (Final Act. 30–31). Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 5 Appellant however argues: Kennis simply teaches comparing fields of information for different “versions” of the same entity. The Examiner has not shown that such fields of information correspond to the discerned information acceleration. Neither has the Examiner shown that Kennis teaches the aspect of comparing the discerned information acceleration with historical and/or projected utilization of the discerned information acceleration to identify any differences. Furthermore, Dupont simply teaches an example of an anomaly by deviation, such as when the daily volume of communications sent by an individual actor on a particular communication channel has significantly changed over time. Hence, Dupont simply teaches comparing the current volume of communications (e.g., number of instant messages) sent by an individual actor on a particular communication channel (e.g., Twitter®) with the past volume of communications (e.g., number of instant messages) sent by the individual actor on the particular communication channel (e.g., Twitter®). If the Examiner interprets such volume of communications as corresponding to the claimed information acceleration, then the Examiner needs to show that Kennis and Dupont, taken in combination, teach that such volume of communications corresponds to the discerned meaning of information acceleration, which captures the rate of increase in the flow of network enterprise data concerning the elements of the multi-dimensional vectors. The Examiner has failed to provide such a finding. (Appeal Br. 11). We agree with Appellant. We begin by construing the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 requires: Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 6 comparing said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration with historical and/or projected utilization of said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration to identify any differences. The Specification describes “[i]nformation velocity, as used herein, refers to the speed and direction of the flow of the enterprise data concerning the elements of the multi-dimensional vectors.” Spec. ¶ 12. The Specification further describes “[i]nformation acceleration, as used herein, refers to the rate of increase in the flow of the enterprise data concerning the elements of the multi-dimensional vectors.” Id. This data is subsequently used to determine differences to generate a value corresponding to a prediction of a business anomaly. As such, we find information velocity and information acceleration are functional data representing the functions of multi-dimensional vectors having the purpose of generating a value corresponding to a prediction of a business anomaly. Thus, we construe the information velocity and information acceleration to have patentable significance beyond non-functional descriptive data. As such, the function represented by each information must be met in the prior art. The Examiner found, inter alia, that Kennis at paragraphs 219 and 220 discloses the above noted comparing step. (Final Act. 30). But, again, according to paragraph 219, the modified vector information relates only to Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 7 entity description changes occurring in a record, and not to function, such as, speed and direction of the flow of an enterprise data. More, specifically, Kennis discloses that the record changes incorporated by the vector are merely identification data: “the change to the address of vendor 1…, and the change in bank account number.” Kennis ¶ 219. Thus, the Kennis comparison occurs only between descriptive data having no function. The Examiner’s citation to paragraph 20 of Kennis (Final Act. 30) which states, “[t]he metadata comprises revision information that allows comparison of different versions of an entity over a period of time, and/or actor information,” is likewise unpersuasive. Here, Kennis discloses the comparison step in the context of normalizing files, but the comparison is again made between descriptive versions of the entity. As we found above, the involved comparison in Kennis is of descriptive data, that is, data which is non-functional, i.e., changes to the address or to a bank account number, which we do not find equates to the claimed comparison involving functional speed and direction of the flow of data. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5–7 which are rejected using Kennis and Dupont under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We will also not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4 which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) using the additional reference to Adler because Adler fails to remedy the shortcomings which we discuss above in the rejection of independent claim 1 using Kennis. Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 8 35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION We use our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.3 An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” 3 We note the Examiner’s remarks in the Interview Summary dated February 15, 2019, but disagree with the Examiner that the claim in Example 40 of the 2019 Guidance, “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas,”( Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf), is similar to claim 1 before us on appeal. We find that claim 1 of Example 40 affirmatively recites the network processing step of “collecting additional traffic data relating to the network traffic when the collected traffic data is greater than the predefined threshold.” We find nothing in claim 1 resembling this type of machine based action. Moreover, the claimed, “monitoring a flow of network enterprise data,” still leaves open to human intervention the monitoring action. Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 9 See id. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 10 protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).4 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency 4 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 11 management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1.5 Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).6 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf). 5 The 2019 Revised Guidance supersedes MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.04 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020) and also supersedes all versions of the USPTO’s “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.” See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility-related guidance issued prior to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should not be relied upon.”). Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments challenging the sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection will not be addressed to the extent those arguments are based on now superseded USPTO guidance. 6 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54– 55. Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 12 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under Step 2B, 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. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36. In so doing, as indicated above, we apply a “directed to” two prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 13 monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53; see also MPEP §§ 2106.04–2106.05. Accordingly, we find: The Specification states: Classifying data and detecting business anomalies, such as compliance concerns, are important issues, especially in highly regulated industries, such as the banking industry. Detecting such business anomalies is difficult since there are many entities, rules and regulations, various classifications of data, etc. For example, a large banking institution may have many different business elements, branches located in various geographical sites as well as being subject to intra-bank disclosure rules, banking regulations, rules governing storage and access of data, etc. Currently, businesses do not have the means for detecting business anomalies, such as compliance concerns. Businesses currently have difficulty in discerning whether their internal processes are consistent, proper or controlled. For example, banking institutions have difficulty in determining whether they are complying with the applicable regulatory rules in connection with the mortgage or refinancing process. For instance, there could be underwriting errors or omissions that lead to compliance concerns. There is not currently a means for recognizing such errors or omissions programmatically. Instead, the banking institutions learn of these problems after the fact in a case by case scenario. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3. The preamble of claim 1 states the claim is: “[a] method for detecting business anomalies.” Claim 1 recites in pertinent part: Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 14 monitoring a flow of network enterprise data; receiving compliance rules, wherein said compliance rules comprise business operational rules; analyzing said network enterprise data and compliance rules to identify entities and concepts to be placed in an ontology, wherein said ontology comprises a formal naming and definition of types, properties and interrelationships of entities, wherein said entities comprise individuals or documents utilized in connection with a business, wherein said concepts comprise ideas that form a substance of said ontology; representing said identified entities and concepts as multi- dimensional vectors, wherein elements of said multi-dimensional vectors comprise origin, destination, jurisdiction and classification; tracking updates, movements and access to said network enterprise data to determine information velocity and information acceleration associated with at least some of said elements of said multi-dimensional vectors, wherein said information velocity captures a speed and a direction of said flow of network enterprise data concerning said elements of said multi-dimensional vectors, wherein said information acceleration captures a rate of increase in said flow of network enterprise data concerning said elements of said multi- dimensional vectors; discerning meaning from said network enterprise data using natural language processing as well as discerning meaning from said information velocity and said information acceleration; comparing said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration with historical and/or projected utilization of said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration to identify any differences; Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 15 applying, . . . a statistical analysis based on said network enterprise data and said differences to generate a value corresponding to a prediction of a business anomaly; and performing an action indicating said business anomaly in response to said value exceeding a threshold. Accordingly, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites a way of detecting business anomalies by comparing network enterprise data, information velocity and information acceleration, with historical and/or projected utilization of this data to generate a value corresponding to a prediction of a business anomaly. Collectively, the limitations identified above in the abridged form of claim 1 recite a data-gathering and computation scheme that is a combination of mental processes and mathematical formulas. The verbs identified above in italics also mimic human thought processes of selecting certain information over others, i.e., evaluation, and creating perhaps with paper and pencil, graphic data interpretation perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has held similar concepts to be abstract. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (characterizing collecting information, analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and presenting the results of collecting and analyzing information, without more, as matters within the realm of abstract ideas). Thus, under the first prong, claim 1 also recites the patent ineligible judicial exception of a mental process. Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 16 Claim 1 also recites mathematical concepts— mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which is one of the enumerated judicial exceptions. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. In particular, claim 1 recites mathematical concepts/ relationships in the form of: representing said identified entities and concepts as multi- dimensional vectors, wherein elements of said multi-dimensional vectors comprise origin, destination, jurisdiction and classification; tracking updates, movements and access to said network enterprise data to determine information velocity and information acceleration associated with at least some of said elements of said multi-dimensional vectors, wherein said information velocity captures a speed and a direction of said flow of network enterprise data concerning said elements of said multi-dimensional vectors, wherein said information acceleration captures a rate of increase in said flow of network enterprise data concerning said elements of said multi- dimensional vectors; [and] . . . . comparing said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration with historical and/or projected utilization of said discerned network enterprise data, said discerned information velocity and said discerned information acceleration to identify any differences. Computations of vectors using acceleration and velocity values to capture rate of increase in flow are mathematical concepts which involve computing data versus time or ratios which are mathematical concepts. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 17 Turning to the second prong of the “directed to” test, claim 1 only generically requires “a processor.” This component is described in the Specification at a high level of generality. See Spec. ¶¶ 14–23, Figs. 1, 2. We fail to see how the generic recitations of these most basic computer components and/or of a system so integrates the judicial exception as to “impose[] a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. We find no indication in the Specification, nor does Appellant direct us to any indication, that the operations recited in independent claim 1 invoke any assertedly inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Because no more than a generic computer is required, the claim also does not define, or rely on, a “particular machine.” MPEP § 2106.05(b). Further, the method does not transform matter. MPEP § 2106.05(c). Thus, we find that the claims recite the judicial exceptions of a mental process and mathematical concepts. Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 18 That the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be limited to detecting business anomalies, does not make them any less abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract.”). Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that the claims are directed to abstract ideas/judicial exceptions, the claims must include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must be an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73). Concerning this step we find the claims at issue amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of detecting business anomalies using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. Limitations such as, “said ontology comprises a formal naming and definition of types, properties and interrelationships of entities, wherein said entities comprise individuals or Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 19 documents utilized in connection with a business, wherein said concepts comprise ideas that form a substance of said ontology,” are not steps, but a recitation of data characterization. All of these computer functions are well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354; see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming”). In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, as we stated above, the claims do not effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access under different scenarios (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 14–23, Figs. 1, 2). Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–226. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 20 considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis (monitoring/receiving/analyzing/representing/tracking/discerning/processing /comparing/applying/performing) and storing is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional. The remaining dependent method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 21 1, 2, 5–7 103 Kennis, Dupont 1, 2, 5–7 3, 4 103 Kennis, Dupont, Adler 3, 4 1–7 101 Eligibility 1–7 Overall Outcome 1–7 1–7 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–7 is reversed. This decision contains a new ground of rejection based on the authority provided to the Board under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides: 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, Appeal 2021-001836 Application 14/956,822 22 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. REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)