Jeffrey KillianDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 1, 20212020003680 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 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. 14/450,042 08/01/2014 Jeffrey A. Killian KILLIAN.U1 3449 94488 7590 02/01/2021 Miracle IP 1020 Dennison Avenue Suite 101 Columbus, OH 43201 EXAMINER KAZIMI, HANI M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2021 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com info@miracle-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY A. KILLIAN Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, 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, 5–8, 12–15, 19, 20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM and designate our affirmance a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Jeffrey A. Killian. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an automated social security eligibility transmittal system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computerized method for determining overlooked eligibility for social security disability insurance (SSDI)/adult child benefits through a computer network, the method comprising the steps of: (a) providing a computer processor and a computer readable media; (b) providing access to a Federal Social Security database through the computer network, wherein the Federal Social Security database provides records containing information relating to a person's status of SSDI adult child benefits and/or parental and/or marital information relating to SSDI adult child benefit eligibility; (c) providing access to a State database through the network, wherein the State database provides records containing information relating to persons receiving treatment for developmental disabilities and/or mental illness from a State licensed care facility; (d) selecting at least one person from the State database who is identified as receiving treatment for developmental disabilities and/or mental illness; (e) creating an electronic data record comprising information relating to at least the identity of the person and social security number, wherein the electronic data record is recorded on the computer readable media; (f) retrieving the person's Federal Social Security record containing information relating to the person's status of SSDI adult child benefits through the network; (g) determining whether the person is receiving SSDI adult child benefits based on the SSDI status information contained within the Federal Social Security database record through the computer network; Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 3 (h) indicating in the electronic data record whether the person is receiving SSDI adult child benefits or is not receiving SSDI adult child benefits; for at least one electronic data record of persons indicated as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits, comprising the steps of: (a) providing a caseworker display system; (b) generating a data collection input screen display to the caseworker display system relating to the electronic data record of persons indicated as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits; (c) caseworker identifying and inputting parental and/or marital names and Social Security numbers into the electronic data record of the person indicated in the electronic data record as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits; (d) retrieving parental and/or marital Social Security record(s) from the Federal Social Security database through the computer network in order to identify information for determining eligibility for SSDI adult child benefits; (e) determining whether the person indicated in the electronic data record is eligible for receiving SSDI adult child benefits based on the identified information for determining eligibility of SSDI adult child benefits and current SSDI benefit legal requirements; and (f) indicating in the electronic data record whether the person is eligible for SSDI adult child benefits or is not eligible for SSDI adult child benefits. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. OPINION 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 Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 4 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. Id. 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.” See Alice, 573 U.S. 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 (1854))); 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 176; see also id. at 191 (“We Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 5 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 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. The PTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, 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); and Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 6 (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look 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. See Guidance. Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance The Appellant argues independent claims 1, 8, and 15 together as a group. Appeal Br. 19–33. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The claimed invention is titled an “AUTOMATED SOCIAL SECURITY ELIGIBILITY TRANSMITTAL SYSTEM.” Spec. 1. The Specification states that the “present invention pertains to . . . a system and method which is used for determining eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits through a computer network.” Spec. ¶ 2; see also id. ¶ 10 (“a computerized method and system for determining the eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits”), ¶¶ 11–14 (“method for determining [the] eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits”), ¶ 34 (“a system for automated Social Security eligibility”). The preamble of claim 1, currently and in its original form, is a “computerized method for determining overlooked eligibility for social security disability insurance (SSDI)/adult child benefits through a computer Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 7 network.” The penultimate step of claim 1, in the first set of recited steps within the claim, recited immediately prior to “indicating” the results, is “determining whether the person is receiving SSDI adult child benefits based on the SSDI status information contained within the Federal Social Security database record through the computer network.” In claim 1, if the person is determined to not be receiving benefits, the method then further recites “determining whether the person indicated in the electronic data record is eligible for receiving SSDI adult child benefits based on the identified information for determining eligibility of SSDI adult child benefits and current SSDI benefit legal requirements.” The Examiner states “method claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of determining eligibility for social security disability insurance (SSDI) benefits.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted). The Appellant’s arguments begin with the contention that the “claimed process is not merely ‘the concept of determining eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits (hereinafter ‘SSDI’) as specifically recited by the Examiner, but identifies overlooked individuals who are currently eligible for SSDI . . . relating to persons receiving treatment for developmental disabilities and/or mental illness from a State licensed care facility.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis added). We agree. Claim 1 recites steps for “selecting at least one person . . . who is identified as receiving treatment,” and “determining whether the person is receiving SSDI adult child benefits.” The “determining” step is described in the Specification as follows: “In step 520, process 500 determines whether the selected person is either receiving SSDI or not receiving SSDI based on the SSDI status information contained within the Federal Social Security database record through the computer network. The determination is Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 8 programmed to be automatically determined by the system.” Spec. ¶ 64 (cited at Appeal Br. 8). The “determining” is thus accomplished by “determining,” according to the Specification. No additional detail is set forth about the determining. However, it is clear from the description that the determining is essentially looking at a list to see if the person’s name, or other identifying information, is on it. A second set of steps in claim 1 is performed only for “persons indicated as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits,” and is thus a set of steps that are performed only on that condition. In that set of steps, the second “determining” step recites “determining whether the person indicated in the electronic data record is eligible for receiving SSDI adult child benefits based on the identified information for determining eligibility of SSDI adult child benefits and current SSDI benefit legal requirements.” The Specification describes this step as follows: Once all available information is collected and the persons record has been updated, process 600 determines in step 630 whether the person is eligible for receiving SSDI benefits based on the identified information for determining eligibility of SSDI benefits contained in the person's data record and current SSDI benefit law and legal requirements. Spec. ¶ 70 (cited at Appeal Br. 9). The second determining step thus is also accomplished by “determining.” The Specification describes that: States have not been able to develop and maintain efficient processes in order to maximize Social Security Disability Insurance recovery. What is lacking from State efforts is a timely process that determines who is not currently receiving monthly Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, who has been overlooked to receive Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on a current basis, what steps are needed to secure the Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 9 current monthly Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, and a process that constantly monitors the new eligibility status for future monthly Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. Spec. ¶ 8. For individuals who are identified as receiving treatment, and identified as not receiving SSDI benefits, but eligible for those benefits, the Specification describes that “the caseworker applies for SSDI benefits on behalf of the eligible person.” Id. ¶ 70. The Specification is silent on what happens after SSDI benefits have been applied for. We interpret the determination of eligibility described to not be outcome determinative for whether the person actually will receive those benefits, because we assume this determination is outside the scope of the claims, and made by the US Social Security Administration. See Spec. ¶ 6. We thus construe the second claimed determining step to be a prediction of eligibility. Claim 1 is thus not a method of “determining eligibility,” as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 3), but instead is a search algorithm for identifying people who may be eligible for SSDI benefits they are not receiving. Though the claim performs a brute force search,2 it is limited to people who are “receiving treatment for developmental disabilities and/or mental illness,” and only those receiving treatment “from a State licensed care facility,” according to claim 1. This is consistent with the Appellant’s characterization of the claimed invention. See Appeal Br. 18 (“Appellant’s claimed process . . . identifies overlooked individuals who are currently eligible for SSDI”); Reply Br. 3 (“a specific step by step method, system, 2 See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_search. Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 10 and product which identifies overlooked SSDI benefits relating to persons receiving treatment for developmental disabilities and/or mental illness from a State licensed care facility”). To that end, claim 1 recites these steps that are essential to this purpose: (d) selecting at least one person from the State database who is identified as receiving treatment for developmental disabilities and/or mental illness; (g) determining whether the person is receiving SSDI adult child benefits based on the SSDI status information contained within the Federal Social Security database record . . . ; for at least one . . . data record of persons indicated as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits, comprising the steps of: (c) caseworker identifying . . . parental and/or marital names and Social Security numbers . . . of the person . . . ; (e) determining whether the person indicated in the . . . data record is eligible for receiving SSDI adult child benefits based on the identified information for determining eligibility of SSDI adult child benefits and current SSDI benefit legal requirements. These steps can be performed by a human, using “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do. Guidance at 52; see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”). As such, claim 1 recites an abstract mental process. Guidance at 52. Neither the Appellant nor the Examiner contemplate on the record that the claim recites an abstract mental process. See, generally, Final Act. 3–8; Answer 3–14; Appeal Br. 18–37; Reply Br. 3–8. Therefore, because our determination of the nature of the abstract idea recited by the claim differs Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 11 from that of the Examiner, we designate our affirmance a new ground of rejection. Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance Turning to the next step in the Guidance, we determine if the claimed method is integrated into a “Practical Application.” Guidance at 54. We use the term “additional elements” for “claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.” See Guidance at 55 n.24. Claim 1 recites several data gathering steps and portions of steps in the always-performed steps: (b) providing access to a Federal Social Security database through the computer network, wherein the Federal Social Security database provides records containing information relating to a person's status of SSDI adult child benefits and/or parental and/or marital information relating to SSDI adult child benefit eligibility; (c) providing access to a State database through the network, wherein the State database provides records containing information relating to persons receiving treatment for developmental disabilities and/or mental illness from a State licensed care facility; (f) retrieving the person's Federal Social Security record containing information relating to the person's status of SSDI adult child benefits through the network. The claim also recites several data gathering steps in the conditionally-performed steps: (b) generating a data collection input screen display to the caseworker display system relating to the electronic data record of persons indicated as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits; (c) caseworker identifying and inputting parental and/or marital names and Social Security numbers into the electronic data record of the person indicated in the electronic data record as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits; Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 12 (d) retrieving parental and/or marital Social Security record(s) from the Federal Social Security database through the computer network in order to identify information for determining eligibility for SSDI adult child benefits. In addition, several steps in both parts of the claim recite steps that amount to the output of results: (e) creating an electronic data record comprising information relating to at least the identity of the person and social security number, wherein the electronic data record is recorded on the computer readable media; (h) indicating in the electronic data record whether the person is receiving SSDI adult child benefits or is not receiving SSDI adult child benefits. The first two sets of limitations involve receiving data, and is thus a data gathering step. See Bilski v. Kappos, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff'd sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity). Similarly, the “creating” and “indicating” are output steps, are appropriately categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. at 610–11; see also Guidance at 55. Taking the claims as a whole, and setting aside the abstract idea steps and insignificant extra-solution activity, we are left with the non- insignificant (for purposes of Prong Two) “additional elements” of the claim. Id. at 55, n.24, n. 31. The “additional elements” in claim 1 for use in Prong Two, therefore, are as follows: (a) providing a computer processor and a computer readable media; (g) . . . through the computer network; (a) providing a caseworker display system; (c) . . . electronic (data record) (e) . . . electronic (data record). Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 13 Continuing the analysis, we note the method, at least according to the Specification, “pertains to . . . determining eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits through a computer network” (Spec. ¶ 2), or, as we surmise, is “a search algorithm for identifying people who may be eligible for SSDI benefits they are not receiving” (see above at Step 2A). As such, the claimed method does not improve another technology, because any improvement recited by the claims concerns improvements to determining eligibility for SSDI benefits, via the claimed search algorithm. Guidance at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). The Specification describes that the claimed method “may be performed by any suitable computer system.” Spec. ¶ 42 (cited at Appeal Br. 7); see also Spec. ¶ 41 (“exact configuration and device connected to the processing system in each individual device in the network may vary”). Because a particular computer is not required for the method, the claim also does not define or rely on a “particular machine.” Guidance at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(b). Further, the method does not transform matter. Guidance at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(c). The method has no other meaningful limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(e)), and thus merely recites instructions to execute the recited judicial exceptions on a computer as a tool (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Guidance at 55; see also Spec. ¶ 10 (“a computerized method and system for determining the eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits through a computer network which is automated, easy to use, and efficient – which saves time and State and Federal funds”). As such, based on the guidelines articulated in the Guidance and MPEP, we determine that claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a “practical application.” Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 14 Step 2B of the Guidance In Step 2B, we consider whether an “additional element,” or combination of “additional elements,” adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which would be considered “something more” than the judicial exception. Guidance at 56. However, in claim 1, the “additional elements,” including the data gathering and output elements, are a “computer processor,” “computer readable media,” “computer network,”, “caseworker display system,” electronic form of data record on a computer, the access to and retrieval from electronic data storage records, and input of data into electronic data storage records. The operations of storing, analyzing, receiving, and writing data are primitive computer operations found in any computer system. See 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,’ discussed below, those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming.”). As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am. Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Also see Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that considering claims reciting data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission as an “ordered combination” reveals that they “amount to ‘nothing significantly Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 15 more’ than an instruction to apply [an] abstract idea” using generic computer technology). Further, implied in the Examiner’s citation to the case at page 5 of the Final Action to “Electric Power Group,” claims involving data collection, analysis, and display are directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” are “a familiar class of claims ‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible concept”). Therefore, we do not discern anything in claim 1 that provides an “inventive concept.” For these reasons, we agree that the claims are directed to abstract mental processes, which do not integrate the processes into a “practical application,” and which do not recite an “inventive concept.” The Appellant’s Arguments We have considered the Appellant’s arguments. They primarily extol the benefits of the claimed method (Appeal Br. 18–22, 24), contend the Examiner failed to provide reasoning or a prima facie case (id. at 20, 23–25), assert the claims are not mathematical concepts, or certain methods of organizing human activity (id. at 23–25), and recite “concrete steps” (id. at 26–27). See also Reply Br. 3–8. These arguments are unpersuasive because they are not responsive to our new characterization of the claims as reciting abstract mental processes, or because we have addressed them in the above analysis. The Appellant also argues the “Examiner has not provided a prima facie case or identified support showing that the recited claim elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional.” Appeal Br. 28 (citing Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 16 Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Similar arguments about the novelty and non-routine nature of the claims continue at pages 28– 36. None of these arguments are persuasive, because they misunderstand the holding Berkheimer, and of the “inventive concept” in subject matter eligibility. Even unconventional abstract ideas are still unpatentable. See SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90 (holding that a novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless patent-ineligible); and Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (emphasis omitted). As to the Appellant’s argument that the claims “reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer network of the Social Security Administration” and “improve . . . computer function” (Appeal Br. at 26), the difficulty with Appellant’s position is that these are not technological improvements or improvements to a technological area. The alleged improvement lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287–88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The alleged improvements identified by Appellant does not “enable[] a computer . . . to do things it could not do before.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Indeed, “[t]he [S]pecification is silent as to any specific structural or inventive improvements in computer functionality related to this claimed system.” See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 17 For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under Section 101. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as ineligible subject matter is AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19, 20, 22 101 Ineligibility 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19, 20, 22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2008). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that 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. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . . Appeal 2020-003680 Application 14/450,042 18 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 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation