International Business Machines CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 20, 20212021000331 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/945,389 11/18/2015 Feng Cao ARC1P048/ CN920150232US1 3694 50548 7590 10/20/2021 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM 1155 N. 1ST ST. SUITE 105 SAN JOSE, CA 95112 EXAMINER MITROS, ANNA MAE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/20/2021 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): zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FENG CAO, BOLIANG CHEN, ANDREAS KIND, YUAN NI, FEI SU, and WEI ZHAO Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 Technology Center 3600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, 9, 10, 12–15, 17–19, 21–23, and 25–28, all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Brief filed May 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2. 2 Appellant canceled claims 4, 6–8, 11, 16, 20, and 24. Appeal Br. 61, 62, 65–67 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Summary Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates generally to “consensus- based reputation tracking in online transactions,” which is robust against improper influence in a network environment. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 8.3 By way of background, Appellant’s Specification explains that “[t]o provide consumer protection, the online community has developed techniques for validating authenticity of transactions.” Spec. ¶ 4. But “single entities [have] the ability to influence the information published by the service provider in exchange for a fee, skewing consumers’ ability to freely exchange information and the corresponding reliability of the marketplace.” Id. ¶ 7. “Accordingly, it would be of great benefit to provide systems and techniques for online marketplace reputation tracking that are robust to invalid transactions and/or improper influence by single entities.” Id. ¶ 8. In an exemplary approach, Appellant proposes offsetting this improper influence by single entities by applying a reputation adjustment to one or more entities that incorporate one or more weighting factors. Id. ¶ 60. Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 14, and 18 are independent. Claims 1 and 3 are exemplary of the claims on appeal and are reproduced, with bracketed lettering added, below: 3 In addition to the Appeal Brief noted above, we refer to: (1) the Specification filed November 18, 2015 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action mailed January 6, 2020 (“Final Act.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 18, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed October 12, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 3 1. A computer-implemented method for consensus- based reputation tracking robust against improper influence in a network environment, the method comprising: [(a)] receiving, at a validator node of the network environment, a rate reputation request, the rate reputation request relating to a transaction attempt between at least two entities in the network environment; [(b)] in response to receiving the rate reputation request, determining by the validator node a plurality of reputation factors comprising: [(b1)] a validity of the transaction attempt to which the rate reputation request relates; [(b2)] a historical proportion of transactions conducted between the at least two entities participating in the transaction attempt; [(b3)] a historical proportion of reputation currency transferred between the at least two entities participating in the transaction attempt; and [(b4)] a confidence of the validator node with respect to the at least two entities; and [(c)] determining, by the validator node, a reputation adjustment for some or all of the at least two entities participating in the transaction attempt, the reputation adjustment being based at least in part on at least some of the plurality of reputation factors; wherein the reputation adjustment comprises some or all of: [(c1)] in response to determining the transaction attempt is invalid, either setting a value of the reputation adjustment to zero, or inverting a sign of a user-defined reputation adjustment; [(c2)] a first weighted adjustment of a user-suggested Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 4 reputation adjustment based on the historical proportion of transactions conducted between the at least two entities participating in the transaction attempt; [(c3)] a second weighted adjustment of the user- suggested reputation adjustment based on the historical proportion of reputation currency transferred between the at least two entities participating in the transaction attempt and other entities within the network environment; and/or [(c4)] a third weighted adjustment of the user-suggested reputation adjustment based on the confidence of the validator node with respect to the at least two entities; and [(c5)] wherein the historical proportion of transactions conducted between the at least two entities is defined by: _______N________ (N1 + N2 + . . . + Nn) wherein: N is a historical number of transactions between the at least two entities; N1 is a number of transactions conducted between a first of the at least two entities and other entities of the network environment not participating in the transaction attempt to which the rate reputation request relates; N2 is a number of transactions conducted between a second of the at least two entities and other entities of the network environment not participating in the transaction attempt to which the rate reputation request relates; and Nn is a number of transactions conducted between an optional Nth of the at least two entities and other entities of the network environment not participating in the transaction attempt to which the rate reputation request relates. Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 5 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising: [(d)] receiving a plurality of reputation adjustments from a plurality of validator nodes of the network environment; and generating a consensus reputation adjustment based on the plurality of reputation adjustments; and [(e)] applying the consensus reputation adjustment to a reputation of some or all of the at least two entities participating in the transaction attempt. Appeal Br. 59–61 (Claims Appendix). REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 9, 10, 12–15, 17–19, 21–23, and 25–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an exception to patent-eligible subject matter without reciting significantly more. Final Act. 3–8. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and the evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appellant appeals the Examiner’s rejection4 of all of the claims as directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101. Appeal Br. 7–13. Appellant’s arguments refer to limitations recited in claims 1 and 3. Id. at 8– 24. Although Appellant nominally argues claims 14, 15, 18, and 19 separately, the arguments presented are substantively similar to the 4 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 6 arguments discussed here for claims 1 and 3. We, therefore, select claims 1 and 3 as exemplary of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). 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 held that § 101 includes implicit exceptions—laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas—which are not patent-eligible. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In January 2019, the Office issued the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”), which addresses the manner in which § 101 case law is to be applied by the Office. In October 2019, the Office issued an update to explain further the manner in which the Guidance should be implemented. See October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites /default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (“Guidance Update”). The Board is required to adhere to these guidance documents as a matter of Office policy. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. The Guidance sets forth a four- part analysis for determining whether a claim is eligible subject matter under § 101; the four parts are labeled here as Step 1, Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B. Id. at 53–56. Guidance Step 1 First, under “Step 1,” we consider whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories set forth in § 101, namely “[p]rocess, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54; see 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appellant’s independent claim 1 recites a “computer-implemented method” (i.e., a “process”), independent claim 14 recites a “computer program product” (i.e., a “manufacture”), and Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 7 independent claim 18 recites a “system” (i.e., a “machine”). As such, the claims are directed to a statutory class of invention within § 101 and we proceed to the next step. Guidance Step 2A Prong 1 (Judicial Exceptions) Second, under “Step 2A Prong 1,” we evaluate “whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; see Alice, 573 U.S. at 216–17. The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites a judicial exception— specifically, an abstract idea. Final Act. 6. According to the Examiner, claim 1 falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas. Id. In particular, the Examiner determines the limitations of claim 1 “recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors” and a “fundamental economic concept.” Id. at 6, 15. The Examiner further determines the “identified limitations recite the concept of determining a reputation adjustment for entities participating in a transaction attempt.” Ans. 14. Appellant argues the limitations of claim 1 are “directed to adjusting reputation ratings in a manner to avoid improper influence in a network environment [and] do not create any contractual or legal relationship/obligation; and involve no advertising, marketing, or sales activity. Rather, Appellant’s claims are directed to essentially a security function – avoiding improper influence.” Appeal Br. 23; Reply Br. 7–8. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea that falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Final Act. 6. Apart from additional Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 8 elements and extra-solution activity discussed separately below, claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps focused on “commercial or legal interactions” in the form of “marketplace reputation tracking,” which is a fundamental economic activity and a long-practiced human activity. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (indicated as abstract “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including . . . mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions.” In particular, limitation (a) involves receiving a rate reputation request relating to a transaction attempt between at least two entities. Limitation (b) involves determining reputation factors. Limitation (c) involves determining a reputation adjustment for the entities participating in the transaction attempt, based at least in part on at least some of the plurality of reputation factors. Determining a reputation adjustment for entities participating in a transaction attempt based on factors and in response to a request, have long been common steps in mitigating transaction risk between entities. For example, Appellant’s Specification discloses that “[t]o provide consumer protection, the online community has developed techniques for validating authenticity of transactions.” Spec. ¶ 4. But “single entities [have] the ability to influence the information published by the service provider in exchange for a fee, skewing consumers’ ability to freely exchange information and the corresponding reliability of the marketplace.” Id. ¶ 7. “Accordingly, it would be of great benefit to provide systems and techniques for online marketplace reputation tracking that are robust to invalid transactions and/or improper influence by single entities.” Id. ¶ 8. These are all steps for mitigating risk in consumer transactions, which is a fundamental economic practice and a certain method of organizing human activities. Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 9 The Examiner also determines that claim 1 recites an abstract idea that “fall[s] within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.” Final Act. 6. Appellant, in turn, does not present arguments rebutting the Examiner’s determination. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of “mathematical concepts” as set forth in the Guidance. Final Act. 6. Limitation (c1) recites “in response to determining the transaction attempt is invalid, either setting a value of the reputation adjustment to zero, or inverting a sign of a user-defined reputation adjustment.” Such operations are mathematical concepts, which the Guidance identifies as abstract ideas. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The Specification supports this determination. Spec. ¶ 60. Limitations (c2) – (c4) recite various weighting factors used in determining a reputation adjustment. A weighting operation is merely multiplication of a value by some number greater or less than one and is, therefore, a mathematical concept. See Spec. ¶ 65 (“used as a weight or multiplier”). Limitation (c5) recites an equation used for determining the historical proportion of transactions and identifies variables in that equation. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (“Mathematical concepts [include] . . . equations”). Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea in the form of a “mathematical concept” as provided in the Guidance. In summary, claim 1 recites abstract ideas that fall within the “certain method of organizing human activity,” and “mathematical concept” groupings of abstract ideas, as set forth in the Guidance. We note that Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 10 whether claim 1 recites plural abstract ideas versus one abstract idea does not affect the inquiry of whether the claim recites patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has held, combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non- abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible claims were directed to a combination of abstract ideas). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea under the Guidance, and we discern no error in that part of the Examiner’s rejection. In addition to determining that limitations (a) through (c) each recite an abstract idea under the Guidance, we note that our reviewing court has found claims directed to similar subject matter recite an abstract idea. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alston, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, recites an abstract idea.); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding abstract claims drawn to collecting and analyzing information and notifying a user based on the analysis); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding claims reciting voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation to be a certain method of organizing human activity). Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 11 For the reasons discussed above, each of limitations (a) through (c) recite one or more judicial exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2A, prong 1, of the Guidance. Turning now to dependent claim 3, the Examiner determines the limitations of claim 3 “fall within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ and ‘Mathematical Concepts’ groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in the 2019 PEG, in that they further recite commercial interactions and mathematical formulas.” Final Act. 8. Appellant does not present arguments rebutting the Examiner’s determination that claim 3 recites one or more abstract idea. Appeal Br. 13– 24. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea that falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Final Act. 8. Claim 3 recites additional steps focused on “commercial or legal interactions” in the form of “marketplace reputation tracking,” which is a fundamental economic activity and a long-practiced human activity. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Claim 3 recites “generating a consensus reputation adjustment based on the plurality of reputation adjustments; and applying the consensus reputation adjustment to a reputation of some or all of the at least two entities participating in the transaction attempt.” Appeal Br. 61. These steps relate to the fundamental economic activity of reputation tracking by determining an adjustment to a reputation value or score. We also agree with the Examiner that claim 3 recites at least one abstract idea in the form of a “mathematical concept” as provided in the Guidance, because generating the reputation adjustment and applying it to a market transaction entity involves mathematical computations. See Spec. ¶ 5 (“the presently disclosed inventive concepts include embodiments where the transacting Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 12 entity may suggest a sign (i.e. positive or negative) and/or a magnitude (e.g. on a scale from one to five stars) of a reputation adjustment in connection with a particular transaction.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that dependent claim 3 recites at least one abstract idea under the Guidance, and we discern no error in that part of the Examiner’s rejection. Guidance Step 2A Prong 2 (Practical Application) Third, having determined that claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea, we evaluate whether “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). “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 meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Id.; see Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78 (2012). This evaluation is conducted by first “[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s),” and then “evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. The Examiner identifies the additional elements in claim 1 as “a computer and a network environment.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner determines that “these additional computer-related elements . . . merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 13 Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application.” Id. We agree with the Examiner’s determination that the additional element of a network environment fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception because the Specification describes the claimed network at a high-level of generality rather than applying the exception in a meaningful way. See Spec. ¶ 25 (“In the context of the present architecture 100, the networks 104, 106 may each take any form including, but not limited to a LAN, a WAN such as the Internet, public switched telephone network (PSTN), internal telephone network, etc.”). Appellant argues that claim 1 recites a practical application to a technical problem because “claim 1 recites additional limitations beyond the specific mathematical rule prescribing how the historical proportion of transactions conducted between the at least two entities is defined.” Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4–6. According to Appellant, “claim 1 requires determining a plurality of specified reputation factors, and determining a reputation adjustment based on these reputation factors” and “Claim 1 further defines the form of the reputation adjustment, based on the reputation factors.” Id. Appellant’s arguments rely on limitations (b) and (c) and, therefore, are unpersuasive because these limitations are part of the abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1. Id. These arguments improperly rely on the novelty of the ineligible concept to confer patent-eligibility. Our reviewing court has stated that it is not enough for eligibility that “the techniques claimed are ‘[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’” or are “novel and nonobvious” because “‘[a] claim for a new abstract idea is Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 14 still an abstract idea.’” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). Appellant argues that claim 1 is analogous to the claims at issue in McRO. 5 According to Appellant, claim 1 is analogous to the claims in McRO because claim 1 is: similarly directed to an improvement in computer related technology in the form of enabling a function previously not capable of being performed by computers. Moreover, as claimed the improved functionality is provided in the form of a set of rules or mathematical relationships that solve the problem in a particular way, rather than simply claiming the desired outcome. Appeal Br. 14–20; Reply Br. 3–7. This argument is unpersuasive. In McRO, the court reviewed claims that use “a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. The court found that the claims did not “simply use a computer as a tool to automate conventional activity,” but instead used the computer to “perform a distinct process” that is carried out in a different way than the prior non-computer method to improve the technology of (3-D animation techniques). McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314–16. In contrast with McRO, Appellant does not identify any specific rules in the claim that are used to solve a technological problem, let alone identify specific rules that act in the same way as the rules enabling the computer in McRO to generate computer animated characters. Nor does Appellant show how the steps in claim 1 are carried out in a substantially different way than 5 Citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 15 non-computer methods. According to Appellant, claim 1 describes “a specific way (use of particular rules to set reputation adjustment weights) to reduce or eliminate the impact of improper influence in a consensus-based validation system” by adjusting reputation ratings or scores. The Specification further explains adjusting reputation ratings: In order to address the problems caused by a particular entity or set of entities improperly influencing another entity's reputation, e.g. by engaging in multiple transactions accompanied by positive or negative reviews, the above historical transaction information may be utilized to normalize the impact of any particular review as a function of the relative proportion of transactions between the reviewing entity and the reviewed entity compared to transactions between the reviewing entity and other entities and/or the reviewed entity and other entities in the online marketplace. For instance, the historical proportion of transactions may be used as a weight or multiplier to adjust the magnitude of the reputation currency adjustment for a particular transaction. In various approaches, the reputation may be adjusted in proportion to the magnitude of the historical proportion of transactions, or inversely proportional to the magnitude of the historical proportion of transactions. Spec. ¶ 67. We disagree with Appellant that normalizing the magnitude of a particular transaction by weighting a reputation rating using a multiplier is equivalent to using specific rules to solve a technological problem, as in McRO. The Specification describes these weighting operations as merely multiplication of a value by some number greater or less than one and Appellant offers no persuasive evidence that these weights are carried out in a substantially different way than non-computer methods would be. Spec. ¶ 60. Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 16 Therefore, on this record, we find insufficient support for Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is similar to the claim in McRO, where computers were unable to make certain subjective determinations, i.e., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the McRO invention by human animators. As such, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claim improves a computer technology or other technology, and we do not consider claim 1 to recite a practical application of the abstract concept in view of McRO. Appellant argues that claim 1 is patent “eligible as providing technical improvements to consensus-based validation systems and techniques.” Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant argues the claimed invention provides an improvement to computer functionality because claim 1 is like the claims in Finjan6. Reply Br. 3–4. We are unpersuaded because Appellant has not established that claim 1 is directed to improving a computer technology or technological process. In Finjan, the court found the claimed behavior-based virus scan constituted an improvement in computer functionality over “traditional, ‘code-matching’ virus scans.” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304. The court determined that the Finjan claimed method employed a new kind of file that allowed access to be tailored to different users, and allowed the system to accumulate and use newly available, behavior-based information regarding potential threats. Id. at 1305. The court ultimately held the Finjan claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security,” and “recite[d] specific 6 Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 17 steps––generating a security profile that identifies suspicious code and linking it to a downloadable––that accomplish the desired result.” Id. Unlike the claims in Finjan, Appellant’s claim 1 does not recite an improvement over traditional functionality of computer technology. Rather, Appellant’s claimed method for consensus-based reputation tracking is merely directed to collecting and manipulating data on a generic computer, and, thus, is an improvement in the claimed abstract idea. While claim 1’s steps limit the scope of the abstract concept by determining a reputation adjustment based on a plurality of different reputation factors, the limitations are not sufficient to transform Appellant’s otherwise patent-ineligible abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Considering claim 1 as a whole, Appellant’s claimed invention lacks a technical solution to a technical problem because the mere presence of a validator node in the claim to receive and manipulate data does not necessarily indicate a technical solution. Thus, unlike the claims in Finjan, Appellant’s claim 1 does not recite an improvement to a “technical field.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues, that “[s]imilar to Symantec, 7 Appellant’s claims set forth a particular (and indeed, unique, non-obvious) technique for avoiding improper influence in a network environment.” Id. at 20. This argument is unpersuasive. Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo analysis includes a search for an inventive concept, the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for “an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the 7 Citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 18 [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216–17 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 66 at 71–72). A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. 66 at 90 (rejecting the suggestion that Sections 102, 103, and 112 might perform the appropriate screening function and noting that in Mayo such an approach “would make the ‘law of nature’ exception . . . a dead letter”). Referring again to the claimed receiving of data, limitation (a) recites “receiving . . . a rate reputation request.” Appeal Br. 14. We interpreted this step broadly as part of the claimed fundamental economic principle, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1. However, even if we were to interpret this limitation narrowly, such that the reputation request is received in an electronic format from a computer acting as a validator node of a network environment, the limitation still would not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. Under such a narrow interpretation, the step of limitation (a) merely would constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., pre-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (“‘extra-solution activity’ can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.”). As such, even if we consider limitation (a) as reciting additional elements under Step 2A, Prong 2, rather than as an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1; at most, limitation (a) recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data. In summary, Appellant fails to identify any way in which an additional element (rather than the abstract idea), whether alone or in combination, reflects an improvement in any technical field, requires a Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 19 particular machine integral to the claim, transforms the article to a different state, or otherwise applies the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment (e.g., identifying skills in an organization). See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(h). We, therefore, determine claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, thus, is directed to a judicial exception. Dependent claim 3 additionally recites “applying the consensus reputation adjustment to a reputation of some or all of the at least two entities participating in the transaction attempt.” Appeal Br. 61. Appellant argues this limitation “expressly require[s] practically applying the information otherwise recited in claim 1. This application is not ‘performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step,’ nor is the application ‘a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception.’” Id. at 14. We are unpersuaded. This limitation does not result in the “[t]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010); MPEP § 2106.05(c). That is, the limitation does not transform an article, i.e., some type of tangible or physical object, but instead transforms an intangible concept, i.e., information, from one form to another. Claim 3 simply collects and manipulates data, thereby applying the consensus reputation adjustment to a reputation. See MPEP § 2106.05(c); see also Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972) (holding that a computer based algorithm that merely transforms data from one form to another is not patent-eligible). As such, claim 3 has no other meaningful limitations (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)), and merely recites instructions to execute an abstract idea on generic computer hardware (see Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 20 MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Appellant, in turn, has proffered no corresponding portion of the Specification that indicates otherwise. Guidance Step 2B (Inventive Concept) Finally, having concluded that claim 1 is “directed to” a judicial exception, we turn to whether the claim provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. To determine whether the claim provides an inventive concept, the additional elements are considered— individually and in combination—to determine whether they (1) add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (2) simply append well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Id. The Examiner determines that the generically recited validator node of the network environment, whether considered separately or in combination, does not add significantly more because: [D]etermining a reputation adjustment for entities participating in a transaction attempt is executed in a computer environment (i.e., a network environment) merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. Final Act. 7. Appellant does not specifically rebut the Examiner’s determination and, as such, neglects to identify any additional element that is not well- understood, routine, or conventional in the field in claim 1. Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 21 Claim 1 recites that “a validator node of the network environment” determines a plurality of reputation factors and a reputation adjustment for entities participating in the transaction attempt, based on the plurality of reputation factors. Appeal Br. 59. The Specification indicates the claimed validator node is conventional hardware: [T]he method 400 may be partially or entirely performed by one or more validator nodes of an online marketplace, or some other device having one or more processors therein. The processor, e.g., processing circuit(s), chip(s), and/or module(s) implemented in hardware and/or software, and preferably having at least one hardware component may be utilized in any device to perform one or more steps of the method 400. Illustrative processors include, but are not limited to, a central processing unit (CPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), etc., combinations thereof, or any other suitable computing device known in the art. Spec. ¶ 82. As demonstrated by the description above, the Specification does not describe the particulars of the additional element, thereby indicating the processor of the validator nodes is sufficiently well-understood in the art. Id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the additional element of a validator node of the network environment, as claimed, is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field, and fails to provide an “inventive concept,” when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 6. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, whether the claim elements are considered individually or as an ordered combination. Final Act. 7–8. The recited hardware adds nothing more than well-understood, routine, Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 22 conventional activities, specified at a high level of generality, to the application of one or more longstanding human activities and mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(ii). Referring to dependent claim 3, the Examiner determines dependent claim 3 “fail[s] to identify additional elements and as such, is not indicative of integration into a practical application.” Final Act. 8. Appellant presents no additional arguments for claim 3; and, as such, neglects to identify any additional element that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field in claim 3. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s determination that claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, whether the claim elements are considered individually or as an ordered combination. Final Act. 8. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that exemplary claims 1 and 3 recite patent-eligible subject matter and we sustain the rejection of claims 1– 3, 5, 9, 10, 12–15, 17–19, 21–23, 25–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal 2021-000331 Application 14/945,389 23 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 9, 10, 12–15, 17–19, 21–23, 25–28 101 Eligibility 1–3, 5, 9, 10, 12–15, 17– 19, 21–23, 25–28 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation