MCKESSON CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2021002892 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 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. 14/674,944 03/31/2015 Roger G. Pinsonneault 050704/503268 9091 99434 7590 02/02/2022 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP One South at The Plaza 101 South Tryon St., Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER MOSELEY, GREGORY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): usptomail@alston.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROGER G. PINSONNEAULT and ELIZABETH S. KAYE Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and AMEE A. SHAH, 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, 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19 and 20.1 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 McKesson Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relate[s] generally to the evaluation of e- prescription transactions” (Spec. para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by one or more service provider computers associated with a service provider and comprising one or more processors from a prescriber computer associated with a prescriber of medication, an e-prescription transaction comprising healthcare transaction data, wherein the healthcare transaction data comprises a medication identifier identifying a medication to be prescribed and at least one patient identifier identifying a patient to receive the prescribed medication; identifying, by the one or more service provider computers, the healthcare transaction data in thee-prescription transaction; storing in a database, on a plurality of network-based non- transitory storage devices, at least the e-prescription transaction associated with a patient medical record via the at least one patient identifier; determining, by the one or more service provider computers and based at least in part on an evaluation of the identified healthcare transaction data according to risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, that the e-prescription transaction includes a basis for rejection in the identified healthcare transaction data, wherein the basis for rejection includes an error in the identified healthcare transaction data and that at least one additional test for the patient is needed based on the medication identified by the medication identifier prior to receiving the medication prescribed; generating, by the one or more service provider computers and based at least in part on a positive determination that the e- prescription transaction includes the basis for rejection, a rejection response to the e-prescription transaction, wherein the rejection response comprises an identification of the error in the identified healthcare transaction data and an option for a prescriber to correct the identified error; Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 3 providing remote access to the one or more service provider computers associated with the service provider over a network for real-time review of the rejection response to the e- prescription transaction through a user interface; and transmitting, by the one or more service provider computers, the rejection response to the e-prescription transaction to the prescriber computer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Moura US 2003/0225728 A1 Dec. 4, 2003 Hansell US 2009/0076850 A1 Mar. 19, 2009 Pinsonneault US 2011/0161109 A1 June 30, 2011 daCosta US 8,046,242 B1 Oct. 25, 2011 Takatoku US 2012/0065999 A1 Mar. 15, 2012 Miller US 2014/0288944 A1 Sept. 25, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicially-excepted subject matter without significantly more. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over daCosta, Miller, Takatoku and Hansell. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over daCosta, Miller, Takatoku, Hansell, and Pinsonnault. Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over daCosta, Miller, Takatoku, Hansell, and Moura. Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 4 OPINION The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicially-excepted subject matter without significantly more. Appellant argues claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 as a group. See Appeal Br. 15-24. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 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)). 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. 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 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 5 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 is directed to “processing and verifying electronic prescriptions transactions,” which falls in the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Final Act. 4. Some aspects of the claimed subject matter were also categorized as mental processes. Id. (“A determination made based on such an evaluation is a judgment based on an evaluation of data, which is a process that can be performed in the human mind.”) Appellant disputes the Examiner’s characterization of what the claim is directed to. First, Applicant contends that the independent claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to far more than the over generalized idea presented in the Final Office Action. For example, embodiments include systems and methods that facilitate evaluating, editing, rejecting, storing, and/or providing remote access and/or messaging back to originators of e- prescription transactions prior to transmitting the transaction to its ultimate destination as part of the processing of the e-prescription transaction in real-time or near real-time. Appeal Br. 16. Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 6 This contention is unpersuasive. The claim does not call for processing an e-prescription transaction in real-time or near real-time. Claim 1 recites providing remote access to the one or more service provider computers associated with the service provider over a network for real-time review of the rejection response to the e-prescription transaction through a user interface. It calls only for providing remote access over a network for real-time review of the rejection. The claim is not directed to what is being argued. Second, Applicant submits that the claims as a whole are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes, and are instead directed, at least in part, to systems and methods that facilitate processing of an e-prescription transaction in real-time through evaluating, editing, rejecting, and storing thee-prescription transaction, and by further providing remote access and notifications to originators of the e- prescription transactions prior to transmitting the e-prescription transaction for final fulfillment; tasks, that would otherwise be unfeasible to implement by human driven methods, mental or otherwise, and generic computer components. Id. This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons the first argument is unpersuasive. Claim 1 does not call for “an e-prescription transaction in real-time through evaluating, editing, rejecting, and storing the e-prescription transaction … .” This unpersuasive argument is repeated in the sentence bridging pages 17-18 of the Appeal Brief. Third, The 2019 PEG guidelines state on page 7 that “a claim with limitation(s) that cannot be practically performed in the Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 7 human mind does not recite a mental process.” Embodiments of the claims clearly do not fall into the realm of “mental processes”. Claim 1 recites that the computer-implemented method provides for remote access to the one or more service provider computers associated with the service provider over a network for real-time review of the rejection response to the e-prescription transaction through a user interface. Applicant asserts that this claim element is not mere “extra solution activities” as alleged by the Final Office Action (see, p. 28), but instead recites an important aspect of the claims whereby the computer implemented method is integrated into a practical application. Applicant asserts that at least this element of the claims is clearly not practically performed in the human mind such that the claims cannot be deemed to fall into the realm of “mental processes”. Id. at 17. This argument is also unpersuasive. The Examiner has not said that the claim step “providing remote access to the one or more service provider computers associated with the service provider over a network for real-time review of the rejection response to the e-prescription transaction through a user interface” is a mental process. Furthermore, the question of whether said claim step falls in the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance is not dispositive of patent eligibility of the claim as a whole. See Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2020). (“Ericsson’s suggestion that an abstract idea must be a “mathematical algorithm,” “method of organizing human activity,” or “fundamental economic practice,” id., is legally erroneous. The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the use of such “categorical rules” to decide patent eligibility. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010). As a result, “[t]he Supreme Court and we have held that a wide variety of well-known and Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 8 other activities constitute abstract ideas.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting cases).”) Finally, Appellant argues that “the present application recites a specific problem in prior art systems, describes an improvement that provides a technological solution to the problems of prior art systems, and the claims reflect the solution to the problem.” Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, there is a dispute over whether claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Final Act. 4 (“processing and verifying electronic prescriptions transactions”)) or a technological improvement over the prior art (Reply Br. 3). Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 9 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 “computer-implemented method” (preamble) comprising “receiving,” “identifying,” “storing,” “determining,” “generating,” “providing,” and “transmitting” steps. The method employs generic computer components: “one or more service provider computers associated with the service provider,” “processors,” “database,” “plurality of network- based non-transitory storage devices,” “user interface,” and “network.” See Spec., e.g., para. 20, e.g., “desktop computer”. 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 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 10 The first step of the claimed method “receiv[es]” information A comprising A1. No technical details about how to receive said information are provided. Accordingly, this step reasonably broadly covers receiving information that a generic computer commonly performs. But for the step being “computer-implemented,” this step could be performed manually. The second step “identif[ies]” information A1 in A. No technical details about how to identify said information are provided. Accordingly, this step reasonably broadly covers identifying information that a generic computer commonly performs. But for the step being “computer- implemented,” this step could be performed manually. The third step “stor[es]” information A associated with information B. No technical details about how to store said information are provided. Accordingly, this step reasonably broadly covers storing information that a generic computer commonly performs. But for the step using a generic database and storage devices and being “computer-implemented,” this step could be performed manually. The fourth step “determin[es]” information C “based at least in part on an evaluation of the identified” A1 “according to risk evaluation and mitigation strategies”. No technical details about how to determine said information are provided. Accordingly, this step reasonably broadly covers determining information that a generic computer commonly performs. But for the step being “computer-implemented,” this step could be performed manually. The fifth step “generat[es]” information D “based at least in part on a positive determination that the e-prescription transaction [A] includes the basis for rejection [C]”. No technical details about how to generate said Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 11 information are provided. Accordingly, this step reasonably broadly covers generating information that a generic computer commonly performs. But for the step being “computer-implemented,” this step could be performed manually. The sixth step “provid[es] remote access to the one or more service provider computers associated with the service provider over a network for real-time review of the rejection response [D] to the e-prescription transaction [A] through a user interface.” No technical details about how to provide said information are provided. Accordingly, this step reasonably broadly covers providing information over a network that a generic computer commonly performs. But for the step using a generic network and being “computer-implemented,” this step could be performed manually. The seventh step “transmit[s]” D “to the prescriber computer.” No technical details about how to provide said information are provided. Accordingly, this step reasonably broadly covers transmitting information that a generic computer commonly performs. But for the step being “computer-implemented,” this step could be performed manually. Where, A is “an e-prescription transaction comprising” A1; A1 is “healthcare transaction data, wherein the healthcare transaction data comprises” A1a and A1b; A1a is “a medication identifier identifying a medication to be prescribed”; A1b is “at least one patient identifier identifying a patient to receive the prescribed medication”; Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 12 B is “a patient medical record via the at least one patient identifier”; C is “a basis for rejection in the identified” A1 that “includes” C1 and C2; C1 is “an error in the identified healthcare transaction data [A1]”; C2 is “at least one additional test for the patient is needed based on the medication identified by the medication identifier [A1a] prior to receiving the medication prescribed”; D is “a rejection response to the e-prescription transaction [A], wherein the rejection response comprises” D1 and D2; D1 is “an identification of” C1; and D2 is “an option for a prescriber to correct the identified error [D1]”. Put together, claim 1 reasonably broadly covers a scheme for reviewing a rejection response to an e-prescription transaction in real-time, employing generic devices. According to the Specification, [i]n the current environment, using a prescription as an example, a pharmacy or other ultimate destination of an e-prescription transaction, may have to request a clarification of the prescription or request to alter the prescription. Para. 3. “Upon receipt of the notification from the pharmacy, such as via a phone call, the prescriber may alter the original prescription, discontinue the order, or provide an explanation for the current order to the pharmacy.” Id. However, Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 13 It can take significant time for the pharmacy to reach the prescriber and receive the necessary information from the prescriber. This additional time creates inefficiencies in the filling process and can result in safety/health issues for the patient (due to errors, inconsistencies, lack of information in the prescription and/or the patient leaving the pharmacy without getting the prescription filled. Id. To overcome such inefficiencies, the invention provide[s] a real-time or near real time way to evaluate e- prescription transactions to determine any errors, issues, or additional information or services that can be associated therewith and for the generation of response/rejection messages to thee-prescription transaction that can be sent back to the originating prescriber at an originating prescriber/provider computer or an originating pharmacist at a pharmacy computer without sending thee-prescription transaction onward to its ultimate destination. In this regard, pharmacies and prescribers of medications, products, or services are less likely to have errors in e-prescription transactions that reach a pharmacy and pharmacists and/or pharmacy employees are less likely to have to track down medication, product, or service prescribers to correct errors or obtain additional information related to prescriptions from prescribers. Id. ¶ 156 (reproduced in the Reply Brief at 3). Given the method as claimed and in light of the Specification’s description of the objective of the invention, claim 1 is directed to a scheme for reviewing a rejection response to an e-prescription transaction in real- time. Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 14 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 reviewing a rejection response to an e-prescription transaction in real-time. An activity such as reviewing a rejection associated with e-prescription transaction is a commercial interaction. 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, 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. Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 15 Technical Improvement10 (Appellant’s Argument) Our characterization (“reviewing a rejection response to an e- prescription transaction in real-time”) of what the claim is directed to is slightly different from that of the Examiner (“processing and verifying electronic prescriptions transactions”). 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. Appellant’s technical improvement argument is presented in the Reply Brief at pages 2-3. We are unpersuaded. Appellant does not clearly explain what the technical improvement is with respect to claim 1. 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. Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 16 Appellant argues that the invention resolves inefficiencies in the prior art. Contacting the prescriber is an inefficient process that can introduce additional complications and errors as it is generally done by phone and subject to human error. Embodiments of the claims determine, from the e-prescription transaction, if a basis for rejection including an error in the identified healthcare transaction data exists. If this basis for rejection exists, a rejection response to the e-prescription transaction is automatically generated based on the determination, where the rejection includes an identification of the error and an option for the prescriber to correct the identified error. Reply Br. 3. But Appellant does not explain the technological improvement that resolves the inefficiencies. Appellant again argues that the “claims additionally improve upon the prior art by providing access to the one or more service provider computers over a network for real-time review of the rejection response to the e- prescription transaction through a user interface.” Id. We do not see and Appellant does explain what the technological improvement is. The claim does not recite a technological improvement like that involved in the Examples discussed in the Appeal Brief (p. 19), i.e., “converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format.” To the extent Appellant is arguing that “providing access to the one or more service provider computers over a network for real-time review” (emphasis added) is a technical improvement, we are unpersuaded. Other than using a generic computer, the claim does not provide any further technical detail for yielding a real-time review. Claiming using a generic computer to produce per se real-time results is an insufficient basis for Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 17 establishing a technical improvement. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“We agree with the district court that the claims here-directed to monitoring the delivery of real-time information to user(s) or measuring such delivery for commercial purposes-are similar to other concepts found to be abstract. … [Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-53 (Fed. Cir. 2016)] (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results is an abstract idea, even when undertaken in “real-time”).) The method as claimed describes, in very general terms, “receiving,” “identifying,” “storing,” “determining,” “generating,” “providing,” and “transmitting.” The method as claimed is not focused on improving technology. It may provide a quicker resolution of errors in e-prescriptions 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.”); cited by the Examiner (Answer 5). We have carefully reviewed the claim. Per our previous claim analysis, claim 1 is reasonably broadly construed as covering a scheme for reviewing a rejection response to an e-prescription transaction in real-time. We see no specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities recited in the claim. 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 “one or more service provider Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 18 computers associated with the service provider,” “processors,” “database,” “plurality of network-based non-transitory storage devices,” “user interface,” and “network,” from its generic counterparts.11 With respect to the “receiving,” “identifying,” “storing,” “determining,” “generating,” “providing,” and “transmitting” 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 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 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 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 19 receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive.”). We do not find Appellant’s contention that the claim presents a technical-improvement via the “providing” step, 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). Rather than showing that the claimed steps describe a technical improvement, Appellant points to result-based functional language that is without any particular means for 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 at 1337 (“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 Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 20 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. Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, we find there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 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 Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 21 practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). In that regard, the Examiner determined, inter alia, that “[t]he recited computer components (e.g., service provider computers, prescriber computers, pharmacy computers, memory, network, non-transitory storage devices, and user interface) are all generically recited components (see specification, par. [0019]-[0023]). Commercially available components, generic computer components, and specially-programmed computer components performing the functions of a generic computer are not considered to be amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.” Final Act. 8. We agree. Appellant argues, inter alia, that the independent claims provide non-routine and non- conventional methods for, at least partially, facilitating the processing of e-prescription transactions in real-time through evaluating, editing, rejecting, and storing thee-prescription transactions, and by further providing remote access and notifications to originators of the e-prescription transactions prior to the transmission of thee-prescription transaction for final fulfillment. Appeal Br. 23. The argument is unpersuasive. We addressed said steps. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea so as to transform said abstract idea into an inventive concept. 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 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 22 The question is not whether said steps - which we characterized as being part of the abstract idea - are well-known, routine, or conventional but whether the claim includes additional elements that individually or in combination transform the abstract idea into an inventive concept. In that regard, the Specification indisputably shows the recited “one or more service provider computers associated with the service provider,” “processors,” “database,” “plurality of network-based non-transitory storage devices,” “user interface,” and “network,” individually and in the context of the scheme as claimed were conventional at the time of filing. Spec., e.g., para. 20 (“desktop computer”). It is intrinsic evidence that the elements as claimed were conventional. In citing the Specification, 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 “one or more service provider computers associated with the service provider,” “processors,” “database,” “plurality of network-based non-transitory storage devices,” “user interface,” and “network,” 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 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 23 We have considered all of 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 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20, 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). The rejection of claims 1, 7, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over daCosta, Miller, Takatoku and Hansell. Appellant argues claims 1, 7, 13, and 17 as a group. See Appeal Br. 24-27. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 7, 13, and 17 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We have reviewed the positions taken by the Examiner and Appellant and find the record favors the Examiner. Many of Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 24 The Appeal Brief begins by stating that daCosta has “no relation to electronic prescriptions.” Appeal Br. 24. But “electronic prescriptions” are mentioned throughout daCosta. See daCosta at, e.g., 6:4. Appellant continues: daCosta [ ] relate[s] to a transaction between a pharmacy and a payer. Conversely, embodiments of the claims are in the form of an e-prescription transaction between a physician and a pharmacy, as depicted in Figures 2A, 2B, and 3 of the present application. This fundamental difference renders the teachings of daCosta distinct from that which is claimed … . Appeal Br. 24-25. On that basis - that the claim involves a physician and a pharmacy rather than a payer and pharmacy - Appellant argues that “daCosta is not providing real-time access to a provider for ‘review of the rejection response to the e-prescription transaction through a user interface.’ [claim 1].” Id. at 25. It is also the basis for arguing that daCosta does not disclose the “generating” step. Id. at 26 (“The rejection is based on a payer refusing payment of a transaction for one reason or another. Conversely, as recited by the claims, the rejection response is not directed to a payer, but to a prescriber.”) The Reply Brief repeats this argument. Reply Br. 4. The difficulty with Appellant’s argument is that we do not see where the argued-over distinction is in claim 1. There is no mention of a physician and a pharmacy. Although the claim does recite “an option for a prescriber to correct the identified error,” there is no indication who the prescriber is. The specification does not define “prescriber,” although it does provide examples. See para. 20 (“e.g., a physician, …”). In light of this, the claim term “prescriber” is reasonably broadly construed to cover individuals who are not physicians, such as the payers daCosta discusses. The argued-over Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 25 distinction may be relevant to the obviousness of the claimed subject matter over daCosta but given how the claim is currently drafted we cannot agree that it is a patentable distinction. Otherwise, Appellant argues that “there is no teaching or suggestion within daCosta that an error is identified that can be rectified by a prescriber.” Appeal Br. 26. But the Examiner did not rely on daCosta as evidence the prior art disclosed said claim limitation. The Examiner relied on Hansell. See Final Act. 21. Finally, Appellant argues that “[t]here is no user interface providing real-time review of a rejection response taught or suggested by da Costa.” Reply Br. 4. However, input/output interfaces are discussed throughout daCosta. They include, for example, monitors. See 7:11. We have reviewed all the arguments but find them unpersuasive as to error in the rejection. The rejection is sustained. The rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over daCosta, Miller, Takatoku, Hansell, and Pinsonnault. The rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over daCosta, Miller, Takatoku, Hansell, and Moura. Appellant does not appear to have specifically addressed the merits of these rejections. Accordingly, they are sustained. CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 is affirmed. Appeal 2021-002892 Application 14/674,944 26 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, 20 101 Eligibility 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, 20 1, 7, 13, 17 103(a) daCosta, Miller, Takatoku, Hansell 1, 7, 13, 17 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 19 103(a) daCosta, Miller, Takatoku, Hansell, Pinsonnault 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 19 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 20 103(a) daCosta, Miller, Takatoku, Hansell, Moura 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 20 Overall Outcome 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, 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