International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2022

2021002840 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/342,814 11/03/2016 Rama K. Akkiraju AUS920160441US1 5473 65362 7590 02/01/2022 TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP IBM Austin P.O. BOX 203518 AUSTIN, TX 78720 EXAMINER CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): USPTO@dockettrak.com tmunoz@tcciplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAMA K. AKKIRAJU, HAIBIN LIU, JALAL U. MAHMUD, VIBHA S. SINHA, and ANBANG XU Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1-23.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to generating recommendations to achieve a desired brand personality perception” (Spec. para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of enabling personal branding, the method comprising: receiving, by an information handling system comprising a processor and a memory, user information from one or more users, the user information comprising user behavior data collected from social media and personal devices associated with the one or more users; analyzing, by the information handling system, the user information by using a personality attribute discovery service to extract and analyze a spectrum of personality attributes to identify an actual self-brand for how third parties perceive a first user by computing a first vector representation of the actual self- brand; identifying, by the information handling system, a desired self-brand as a set of hierarchical goals for how the first user wants to be seen by third parties by using a desired self-brand predictor to analyze the user information and target ratings directly input by the first user and compute a second vector representation of the desired self-brand; identifying, by the information handling system, one or more gaps between the actual self-brand and the desired self- brand for the first user by comparing the first and second vector representations; and outputting, by the information handling system, visual information identifying the one or more gaps between the actual self-brand and the desired self-brand for the first user. Appeal Br. 13 (“Appendix A - Pending Claims”). Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 3 REJECTION Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicially-excepted subject matter without significantly more. OPINION The Appellant argues claims 1-23 as a group. See Appeal Br. 3-12. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 2-23 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Introduction 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.” In that regard, claim 1 covers a “process” and is thus statutory subject matter for which a patent may be obtained.2 This is not in dispute. However, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 provision “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). 2 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance which requires determining whether “the claim is to a statutory category.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. See also id. at 53-54 (“consider[] whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101.”). Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 4 In that regard, notwithstanding claim 1 covers statutory subject matter, the Examiner has raised a question of patent eligibility on the ground that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Alice step one - the “directed to” inquiry: According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (emphasis added). The Examiner determined, inter alia, that claim 1 “recites a method for enabling personal branding . . . ” (Final Act. 6) which falls into the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance’s organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (id. at 6-7). Appellant argues, inter alia, that the claimed subject matter “recite[s]” a “specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities.” Appeal Br. 9. Accordingly, a dispute over whether claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea is present. Specifically, is claim 1 directed to enabling personal branding (Final Act. 6) or an improvement in computer capabilities (Appeal Br. 9)? Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 5 Claim Analysis3 We consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in light of the Specification at the time of filing.4,5,6 Claim 1 is a “method of enabling personal branding” (preamble) comprising “receiving,” “analyzing”, “identifying,” “identifying,” and “outputting” various types of information A-H, all being performed “by an informational handling system comprising a processor and a memory,” where A is “user information from one or more users, the user information comprising user behavior data collected from social media and personal devices associated with the one or more users”; 3 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.” Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that ‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 4 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981). 5 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims. . . . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), among others. 6 See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, footnote 14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation . . . .”). Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 6 B = “a spectrum of personality attributes to identify an actual self-brand for how third parties perceive a first user” by “computing”; C = “a first vector representation of the actual self-brand”; D is “a desired self-brand as a set of hierarchical goals for how the first user wants to be seen by third parties”; E is “target ratings directly input by the first user”; F is “a second vector representation of the desired self-brand”; G is “one or more gaps between the actual self-brand and the desired self-brand for the first user”; and, H = “visual information”. The “informational handling system” is generic (see Spec., e.g., para. 18). The first step “receiv[es]” information A. No technical details about how to receive said information is provided. Accordingly, this step reasonably broadly covers receiving information that a generic computer commonly performs. The second step “analyz[es]” A “by using a personality attribute discovery service to extract and analyze” B “by computing” C. The Specification discloses that the “personality attribute discovery service” is a “service,” “such as IBM's Personality Insights service” (Spec. para. 62). No technical details about the service, how it extracts and analyses information, is provided. Accordingly, the use of “a personality attribute discovery service” to effect said extraction and analysis is reasonably broadly construed to cover extracting and analyzing information that a generic Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 7 computer commonly performs. Cf. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017): [I]n Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank National Ass'n[, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)], we held the concept of “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory” abstract. 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In particular, the invention there involved extracting data from a document, entering the data into appropriate data fields, and storing the data in memory. Id. at 1345. See also In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the server is described simply in terms of performing generic computer functions such as storing, receiving, and extracting data.”). The third step “identif[ies]” D “by using a desired self brand predictor to analyze” A and E and “compute” F. The Specification discloses little technical detail about the “desired self brand predictor.” A “self brand predictor” is depicted in Figure 1 but it is depicted simply as a black box. Figure 4 shows it as well but there it depicts a “set of representative personal images,” which the claim is not limited to. The Specification describes the predictor as “compris[ing] logic to perform operations . . . assessing various multi-modal sources, such as text, audio, and video, generated by the user and/or the user's friends, to infer or predict the user's desired self-brand imagery for output in vector form.” Para. 33. This description describes an intended objective, i.e., assessing information for predictive purposes, rather than what it is or how the assessing is accomplished so that a vector form of the user's desired self-brand imagery can be output. Because of the absence of technical details (other than “logic”) about how the predictor assesses the information, the “self brand predictor” as claimed is reasonably broadly Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 8 construed to cover analyzing information that a generic computer commonly performs. The fourth step “identif[ies]” G “by comparing” C and F. There is nothing about this step that a generic computer does not commonly perform. And, lastly, H, “identifying” G “for the first user,” is “output.” There is nothing about this step that a generic computer does not commonly perform. The Specification exemplifies “output” as “displaying” the visual information which does not add significant technical detail to render this step non-abstract. Spec. para. 74. Cf. SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the focus of the claims is not a physical-realm improvement but an improvement in wholly abstract ideas- the selection and mathematical analysis of information, followed by reporting or display of the results.”). Put together, claim 1 describes a scheme for facilitating achieving a desired brand personality perception whereby a first vector representation of an actual self-brand for how third parties perceive a user is compared to a second vector representation of a desired self-brand for a user for how the first user wants to be seen by third parties and identified gaps between the actual self-brand and desired self-brand are displayed, using a generic computer. According to the Specification, brands are often socially significant to individuals or groups who equate various emotions and/or human attributes to the brands which in turn elicit those emotions and/or attributes in the persons consuming the entities associated with the brands. In this way, a brand's personality can create brand identities for a customer that satisfies the customers' self-expression. Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 9 Para. 2. However, “existing solutions for generating product recommendations do not make effective use of brand personality information to help consumers navigate the product purchase options [needs].” Para. 3. To solve this, there is provided a recommendation system, method, and apparatus for enabling personal branding by obtaining actual personal brand information input for a user (in terms of how the user is actually perceived by others) and desired personal brand information input from the user (in terms of how the user wishes to be perceived by others) which is then manipulated in vector form to identify any gaps between the actual and desired brand information and to recommend one or more products which bridge the identified personal brand gaps. Para. 4. By presenting product recommendations along with information identifying the gaps between user's actual and desired personal brand imagery and the severity ratings of the gaps, the user can quickly and efficiently navigate the product recommendations in terms of products' symbolic meanings (e.g., young, masculine) and their relationship to the user's desired personal brand imagery. Id. A system is devised to visually output the identified gaps. “The output may be used as a basis for generating recommendations for consumer purchases bring the actual brand personality more in line with the intended brand personality, i.e., close the gap or reduce the size of the gap.” Para. 60. Given the method as claimed and in light of the Specification’s description of the objective of the invention in the branding realm, we find that claim 1 is directed to a scheme for facilitating achieving a desired brand personality perception whereby a first vector representation of an actual self- brand for how third parties perceive a user is compared to a second vector Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 10 representation of a desired self-brand for a user for how the first user wants to be seen by third parties and identified gaps between the actual self-brand and desired self-brand are displayed. The Abstract Idea7 Above, where we reproduce claim 1, we identify in italics the limitations that recite an abstract idea.8 Based on our claim analysis (above), we determine that the identified limitations describe a scheme for facilitating achieving a desired brand personality perception. Branding is a commercial interactions and involves managing interactions between people, as well as being a fundamental economic practice. It falls within the enumerated “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance.9 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 7 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. 8 This corresponds to Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. 9 This corresponds to Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the [2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This case implicates subject matter grouping “(b)”: “(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 11 Technical Improvement10 (Appellant’s Argument) Our characterization of what the claim is directed to is similar to the Examiner’s. The Examiner identified in italics the limitations in claim 1 that recite an abstract idea (Final Act. 3), which is similar to our indication (supra). The Examiner provided a further condensed characterization of what claim 1 is directed to that describes the abstract at a higher level of abstraction than ours. See Final Act. 6. Nevertheless, “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis.”). We have reviewed the record and are unpersuaded as to error in our or the Examiner’s characterization of what claim 1 is directed to. marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Id. at 52. 10 This corresponds to Prong Two [“If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application”] of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “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.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. One consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application” is if “[a]n additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” Id. at 55 (footnotes omitted). Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 12 Before we get to Appellant’s technical improvement argument, we address various points made on pages 4-6 of the Appeal Brief. Page 4 of the Appeal Brief criticizes the Examiner for not following “MPEP § 2106.04(a) (‘Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea.’) (emphasis added).” However, the Examiner appears to have done that. See Final Act. 3 and Answer 3-4. Pages 5-6 of the Appeal Brief argue that the abstract idea the Examiner characterized claim 1 as being directed to does not fall in the “‘commercial or legal interactions’ and ‘managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people’ sub-groupings,” referring to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The Examiner determined, inter alia, that claim 1 “recites a method for enabling personal branding . . .” (Final Act. 6) which falls into the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (id. at 6- 7). The argument is unpersuasive. “Branding” is a marketing term. See para. 2 (“term ‘brand’ refers to any designation of a product, service, location, or any other designation of an entity. Brands are often represented by trademarks, service marks, trade dress, or other identifier of a good, service, or source of goods/services.”) As such, it falls within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping because it is a marketing activity. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II): “The phrase ‘methods of organizing human activity’ is used to describe concepts relating to: • fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 13 • commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Emphasis added. Pages 7-9 of the Appeal Brief argue that the claimed subject matter articulates a technical improvement argument. We are unpersuaded. Appellant does not clearly explain what the technical improvement is with respect to claim 1. We believe the Appellant is referring to the “receiving”, “analyzing” and “outputting” steps. See Appeal Brief 8 (“receives,” “analyzes,” “outputs”). But these steps do not reflect an improvement in technology. See Claim Analysis (supra). They describe operations associated with generic computers. The method as claimed describes, in very general terms, processing (via “receiving,” “analyzing”, “identifying,” “identifying,” and “outputting”) various types of information. The method as claimed is not focused on improving technology. It may enhance the use of personal branding but that is insufficient to show the claimed method yields a technical improvement. Cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26-39, not on improving computers or technology.”). We have carefully reviewed the claim. Per our previous claim analysis, claim 1 is reasonably broadly construed as covering a scheme for facilitating achieving a desired brand personality perception. We see no specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities recited in the claim. Rather than being directed to any specific asserted improvement in computer Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 14 capabilities, the claim supports the opposite view - that the claimed subject matter is for “generating recommendations to achieve a desired brand personality perception.” Spec. para. 1. The claim provides no additional structural details that would distinguish any device required to be employed to practice the claimed subject matter as claimed, such as the recited “information handling system,” from its generic counterparts.11 With respect to the “receiving,” “analyzing”, “identifying,” “identifying,” and “outputting” steps, the Specification attributes no special meaning to any of these operations, individually or in the combination, as claimed. In our view, these are common computer processing functions that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known generic computers were capable of performing and would have associated with generic computers. Cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the claims merely recite “well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],” either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294) . . . . For example, claim 1 recites “sending a first set of electronic messages over a network to devices,” the devices being “programmed to communicate,” storing test results in a “machine-readable medium,” and “using a computerized system . . . to automatically determine” an estimated outcome and setting a price. Just as in Alice, “all of 11 Cf. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Claim 1 is aspirational in nature and devoid of any implementation details or technical description that would permit us to conclude that the claim as a whole is directed to something other than the abstract idea identified by the district court.”). Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 15 these computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original); see also buySAFE[, Inc. v. Google, Inc.], 765 F.3d [1350,] 1355 [(Fed. Cir. 2014)] (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive.”). We do not find the Appellant’s contention that the claim presents a technical-improvement via the “receiving”, “analyzing” and “outputting” steps,” as reasonably broadly construed, persuasive as to error in the Examiner’s or our characterization of what the claim is directed to because the method as claimed fails to adequately show it. We are unable to point to any claim language suggestive of an improvement in technology. An argument that such an improvement exists is alone insufficient. See generally In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965); In re Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019 (CCPA 1973); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974); and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, we find there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. For dependent claims 3, 5-7, 12, 14-16, 20, and 21, Appellant argues that they call for “training,” “transforming,” and “applying” and these steps per se reflect a technical improvement. We are unpersuaded. Rather than showing that the claimed steps describe a technical improvement, the Appellant points to result-based functional language (e.g., claim 3 (“training, by the information handling system, a self-brand prediction model using the survey answer data and received user information to generate a trained model output”) that is without any particular means for Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 16 achieving any purported technological improvement. By so broadly defining the steps, that is, by setting out what they are aspiring to accomplish without any technical details for achieving them, let alone any purported technological improvement, these steps, and the claim as a whole, are in effect presenting the invention in purely result-based functional language, strengthening our determination under Alice step one that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Cf. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Claim 1 recites a method for routing information using result-based functional language. The claim requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”). See also Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020): The claims we held ineligible in Two-Way Media similarly failed to concretely capture any improvement in computer functionality. In Two-Way Media, the claims recited a method of transmitting packets of information over a communications network comprising: converting information into streams of digital packets; routing the streams to users; controlling the routing; and monitoring the reception of packets by the users. 874 F.3d at 1334. Two-Way Media argued that the claims solved data transmission problems, including load management and bottlenecking, but the claimed method was not directed to those improvements. Id. at 1336-37. We therefore held the claims ineligible because they merely recited a series of abstract steps (“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating records”) using “result-based functional language” without the means for achieving any purported technological improvement. Id. at 1337. Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 17 Appellant further points to non-abstract examples v.-vii. in MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) as being akin to what is instantly claimed. We disagree. Unlike those examples, the instant claims lack sufficient technical detail. Lastly, Appellant argues that the claimed “personality attribute discovery service” and “desired self-brand predictor” -- which respectively compute “a first vector representation of the actual self-brand” and “compute a second vector representation of the desired self- brand” -- are “additional elements” that the Examiner should have identified and evaluated when evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Appeal Br. 10. However, the Examiner did address said limitations. See Answer 6. We have considered Appellant’s other arguments challenging the Examiner’s determination under step one of the Alice framework and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Alice step two - Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?12 Step two is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., 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 [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative 12 This corresponds to Step 2B, of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 “if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).” Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 18 Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)) (alteration in original). In that regard, the Examiner determined, inter alia, that “there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Final Act. 6. We agree. Pages 10-12 of the Appeal Brief criticize the Examiner for not “expressly finding, and supporting in writing, any of the four required findings as required by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(2).” Id. at 10. Here, the Specification indisputably shows the recited “information handling system” individually and in the context of the scheme as claimed was conventional at the time of filing. Spec. para. 23 (“a general purpose computer”). It is intrinsic evidence that the claimed “information handling system” as claimed is conventional. In doing so, we have followed “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP Inc.[, 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)],” USPTO Memorandum, Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy, April 19, 2018 (the “Berkheimer Memo”)). Accordingly, there is sufficient factual support for the well-understood, routine, or conventional nature of the claimed “information handling system” individually or in the combination as claimed. No other persuasive arguments having been presented, we conclude that no error has been committed in the determination under Alice step two that claim 1 does not include an element or combination of elements circumscribing the patent-ineligible concept it is directed to so as to transform the concept into a patent-eligible application. Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 19 We have considered all of the Appellant’s arguments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, because we are not persuaded as to error in the determinations that representative claim 1, and claims 2-23 which stand or fall with claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an “inventive concept,” we sustain the Examiner’s conclusion that they are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for being judicially-excepted from 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cf. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x 991, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have considered all of LendingTree’s remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive. Accordingly, because the asserted claims of the patents in suit are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an ‘inventive concept,’ we hold that they are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”); see, e.g., OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1364; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016). CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23 is affirmed. More specifically: The rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicially-excepted subject matter is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-23 101 Eligibility 1-23 Appeal 2021-002840 Application 15/342,814 20 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