Nebil Aissa

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2022

2021003392 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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. 15/209,023 07/13/2016 Nebil Ben Aissa NB0001 9156 68188 7590 03/07/2022 FIG. 1 Patents 116 W. Pacific Avenue Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER SCHMUCKER, MICHAEL W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2022 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): Fig1Docket@fig1patents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NEBIL BEN AISSA ____________ Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, JAMES P. CALVE, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Nebil Ben Aissa (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 13-32, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented a way to enable buyers to get various types of discounts on their purchases from merchants on an internet commerce platform which operates on a social network site. Specification para. 2. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 13, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 13. A method implemented by at least one computing device, the method comprising: [1] receiving, by the at least one computing device, data via a network describing a new business, the data including a telephone number associated with the new business; [2] generating, by the at least one computing device, a listing that describes the new business as unverified; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed January 7, 2021) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 2, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 11, 2021), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 11, 2020). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nebil Ben Aissa (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 3 [3] outputting, by the at least one computing device, the listing as available via the network, the listing including the invitation to verify the new business and does not include the telephone number; [4] receiving, by the at least one computing device, at least two responses to the listing, each said response including at least one telephone number such that at least two telephone numbers are indicated for the new business; [5] determining, by the at least one computing device, whether the telephone number associated with the new business in the data corresponds to the at least two telephone numbers of the at least two responses; [6] verifying, by the at least one computing device, the new business responsive to the determining that the telephone number associated with the new business in the data corresponds to the at least two telephone numbers; and Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 4 [7] outputting, by the at least one computing device, an indication that the new business is verified with respect to an internet commerce platform. Claims 13-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.3 Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. The issues of indefiniteness matter turn primarily on whether one of ordinary skill would understand where the computer operations recited are performed. 3 Four rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Final Action 9-17) were withdrawn (Answer 3). Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 5 ANALYSIS Claims 13-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 14 Claim 13, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP 2 The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . . determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as 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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (citations omitted) (some alterations in original) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining 4 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 6 whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. STEP 2A Prong 1 At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method claim 13 recites receiving data, generating and outputting listing data, receiving response data, determining correspondence of data, verifying business data, and outputting indication data. Outputting data is transmitting data. Determining data correspondence and verification are rudimentary forms of data analysis. Thus, claim 13 recites receiving, generating, transmitting, and analyzing data. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. From this we see that claim 13 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 7 extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1) mathematical concepts,5 (2) certain methods of organizing human activity,6 and (3) mental processes.7 Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 13 recites the concept of managing business interaction with consumers. Specifically, claim 13 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to indicate to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers. The advice to indicate to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers involves verifying such commercial involvement, which is an economic act, and inviting commercial verification, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 13 recites “new business is verified with respect to an internet commerce platform,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is managing verification for customers. Similarly, claim 13 5 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 6 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 7 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 8 recites “verify the new business,” which is also characteristic of managing interactions with commercial business. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to allowing users to verify a business prior to it being listed as a business. Final Act. 5. The preamble to claim 13 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the steps in claim 13 result in managing business interaction with consumers by indicating to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 4 recite receiving data. Limitations 2, 3, and 5-7 recite generic and conventional receiving, generating, transmitting, and analyzing of business phone data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for indicating to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers. To advocate indicating to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to enabling buyers to get various types of discounts on their purchases from merchants on an internet commerce platform which operates on a social network site. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 13 recites managing business interaction with consumers. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain method of organizing human activity because managing business Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 9 interaction with consumers is managing commercial interaction. The concept of managing business interaction with consumers by indicating to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers is one idea for attracting such interaction. The steps recited in claim 13 are part of how this might conceptually be premised. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(verifying credit card transactions), Alternately this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, generating, transmitting, and analyzing data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 13, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, generation, transmission, and analysis and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 13 recites receiving, generating, transmitting, and analyzing data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 10 From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 13 recites managing business interaction with consumers by indicating to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 13 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.8 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted)(alterations in original). Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 4 are pure data gathering 8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 11 steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 2 and 3 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Step 7 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 5 and 6 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 13 simply recites the concept of managing business interaction with consumers by indicating to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and does not recite any particular implementation. Claim 13 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different generic equipment9 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on 9 The Specification describes a point of sale device and a mobile device. Spec. para. 13-14. The Specification also describes a smartphone for carrying out the flowchart operations. Spec. para. 76-78. Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 12 the concept of managing business interaction with consumers by indicating to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers under different scenarios. It does not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 13 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing business interaction with consumers by indicating to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 13 is directed to achieving the result of managing business interaction with consumers by advising one to indicate to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 13 commercial or legal interactions, which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 13 provides an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo step two. the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted) (alterations in original). “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer. They do not.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 14 computer for receiving, generating, transmitting, and analyzing data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval-one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. 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 America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 13 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-generation- transmission-analysis is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 15 transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that claim 13 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 13 is representative. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. As to the structural claims, they are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. This Court has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting § 101“in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’ Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (citations omitted) (alteration in original). As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 16 legal interaction of managing business interaction with consumers by advising one to indicate to consumers that an internet commerce platform is associated with a business with checked telephone numbers, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Final Action 4-9 and Answer 6-9 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the claims herein are not simply directed to mere "advertising" as asserted by the Examiner. Rather, Appellant's claimed subject matter is directed to solving a technical problem, for instance verification of a new business member in a multi-merchant, multi-payer internet commerce platform in a social network to prevent fraudulent businesses from being listed on an internet commerce site. Reply Br. 6 (footnotes omitted). The claims are directed to solving a marketing and sales problem of comforting potential customers as to the legitimacy of a business. This problem predates computer technology and is the modern equivalent of comforting customers that a print advertisement is for a legitimate business. The problem is not technical, but rather is placed in a technical context, which is insufficient to confer eligibility. “The Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 17 Appellant also attempts to analogize the claims to those involved in McRO, 837 F.3d 1299. Reply Br. 6 . In McRO, the court held that, although the processes were previously performed by humans, “the traditional process and newly claimed method . . . produced . . . results in fundamentally different ways.” FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094 (differentiating the claims at issue from those in McRO). In McRO, “it was the incorporation of the claimed rules not the use of the computer, that improved the existing technology process,” because the prior process performed by humans “was driven by subjective determinations rather than specific, limited mathematical rules.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted). In contrast, the claims of the instant application merely implement an old practice of using decision criteria in making sales decisions in a new environment. Appellant has not argued that the claimed processes of selecting phone numbers apply rules of selection in a manner technologically different from those which humans used, albeit with less efficiency, before the invention was claimed. Merely pigeon holing the objects of decision making in tiers to aid decision making is both old and itself abstract. The claims in McRO were not directed to an abstract idea, but instead were directed to “a specific asserted improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type.” We explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” The claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers. FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094 (citations omitted) (alteration in original). Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 18 Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the claims found patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Reply Br. 7. In DDR Holdings, the court evaluated the eligibility of claims “address[ing] the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink.” Id. at 1257. There, the court found that the claims were patent eligible because they transformed the manner in which a hyperlink typically functions to resolve a problem that had no “pre-Internet analog.” Id. at 1258. The court cautioned, however, “that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent.” Id. For example, in DDR Holdings the court distinguished the patent-eligible claims at issue from claims found patent-ineligible in Ultramercial. See id. at 1258-59 (citing Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As noted there, the Ultramercial claims were “directed to a specific method of advertising and content distribution that was previously unknown and never employed on the Internet before.” Id. at 1258 (quoting Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16). Nevertheless, those claims were patent ineligible because they “merely recite[d] the abstract idea of ‘offering media content in exchange for viewing an advertisement,’ along with ‘routine additional steps such as updating an activity log, requiring a request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and use of the Internet.’” Id. (citations omitted). Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 19 Appellant’s asserted claims are analogous to claims found ineligible in Ultramercial and distinct from claims found eligible in DDR Holdings. The ineligible claims in Ultramercial recited “providing [a] media product for sale at an Internet website;” “restricting general public access to said media product;” “receiving from the consumer a request to view [a] sponsor message;” and “if the sponsor message is an interactive message, presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one query.” 772 F.3d at 712. Similarly, Appellant’s asserted claims recite receiving, generating, transmitting, and analyzing data. This is precisely the type of Internet activity found ineligible in Ultramercial. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “verification of a new business member in a multi-merchant, multi-payer internet commerce platform in a social network is properly classified as a practical application of a solution addressing a digitally-rooted challenge that is particular to the Internet.” Reply Br. 8. No technological implementation or application details are recited. As such, the claims recite conceptual ideas to be applied by generic computer operations. This is insufficient to render eligibility. At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims contain an inventive concept that is also found in the specific ordered combination Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 20 of the limitations, similar to the Federal Circuit's findings in BASCOM (BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Reply Br. 9-11. Initially, we remind Appellant that BASCOM did not find claims eligible on the substance, but rather that the Appellees did not provide sufficient evidence to support a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in which facts are presumed in the non-movant’s favor. The key fact in BASCOM was the presence of a structural change in “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end- users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[t]he foregoing verification process is very effective at preventing fraudulent businesses from becoming listed on the internet commerce site.” Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Utility is a separate issue, and does not confer eligibility per se. “That the automation can ‘result in life altering consequences,’ is laudable, but it does not render it any less abstract.” Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claim 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention The Examiner determines “the claim recites means for performing computer functions, but the specification does not mention a computer, a server, a module, or any ‘units.’” Final Act. 4. The Examiner is therefore rejecting claim 32 for being unable to be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Appeal 2021-003392 Application 15/209,023 21 We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that there is sufficient structure shown by the flowchart in FIG. 16A (which illustrates a flow chart of how new businesses may be on- boarded to the internet commerce site by using a social network in accordance with the present invention) and further explained in paragraph [0086] to support claim 32. Reply Br. 4. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 13-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is improper. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 13-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 13-32 101 Eligibility 13-32 32 112(b) Indefiniteness 32 Overall Outcome 13-32 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) (2011). AFFIRMED