Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021002437 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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. 15/130,770 04/15/2016 Ashwin Ram PARC-20150957US01 9789 35699 7590 03/02/2022 PARC c/o Yao Legal Services, Inc. 2800 Fifth Street Suite 110 DAVIS, CA 95618-7759 EXAMINER SAINT-VIL, EDDY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): incoming@yaolegal.com jenny@yaolegal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ASHWIN RAM, GREGORY MICHAEL YOUNGBLOOD, LESTER D. NELSON, ANUSHA VENKATAKRISHNAN, PETER L. PIROLLI, MICHAEL K. SILVA, JR., and SHIWALI MOHAN Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 Technology Center 3700 Before DANIEL S. SONG, BRETT C. MARTIN, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. 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) (2012). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Palo Alto Research Center, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a system and method to create, monitor, and adapt health programs. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-executable method for facilitating a multidimensional wellness coaching program and recommendation by an activity monitoring device belonging to a user, comprising: generating, by the activity monitoring device for the user, a radar chart indicating a plurality of dimensions, wherein a respective dimension represents a wellness indicator for the user; generating, by the activity monitoring device, an initial set of numeric values corresponding to the plurality of dimensions of the radar chart; determining a set of activities for the user to perform that improve the wellness indicators corresponding to one or more of the plurality of dimensions of the radar chart; receiving user input from the activity monitoring device associated with the one or one or more of the plurality of dimensions; detecting, by a set of sensors of the activity monitoring device, movement and surrounding environment of the user; generating sensor data and user activity data based on the detected movement and surrounding environment of the user; based on the sensor data, the user input, and user activity data, modifying one or more of the initial set of numeric values to generate a second set of numeric values corresponding to the plurality of dimensions of the radar chart; modifying one or more activities of the set of activities based on the second set of numeric values; generating a coaching recommendation based on the second set of numeric values; and displaying the set of activities and coaching recommendation on the activity monitoring device. Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 3 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 2.2 PRINCIPLES OF LAW The Supreme Court has 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.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)). According to the Supreme Court’s framework, we must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those concepts. Id. If so, we must secondly “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.” Id. “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. at 221 (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic 2 The Final Action initially states that the claims are “rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter,” but then proceeds to state that independent claim 1 “falls within the ‘process’ category of 35 U.S.C. § 101,” and engages in the analysis for judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 2. Accordingly, the Examiner’s initial statement, although erroneous, appears to be a matter of poor phrasing of the rejection, and is not representative of the applied rejection. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 4 computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. The PTO published revised guidance on the application of Section 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).3 The Guidance provides that in conducting Step One analysis of the Alice framework, we first look to whether the claim recites: Prong 1: any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes); and Prong 2: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53-55 (Step 2A). In other words, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Guidance, we look to whether the claim recites an abstract idea. If the claim recites an abstract idea, we look under Step 2A, Prong 2 at the claim, as a whole, and determine whether the claim is directed to the abstract idea or, instead, is directed to a “practical application” of the abstract idea. 3 The Office issued a further memorandum on October 17, 2019 (“October 2019 Memorandum”) clarifying guidance of the January 2019 Memorandum in response to received public comments. See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update. pdf. Moreover, “[a]ll USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Guidance at 51; see also October 2019 Memorandum at 1. The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) now incorporates the Guidance and the subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 5 Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to Step Two under the Alice framework to determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation individually or as an ordered combination, beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field, or 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, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (Step 2B). OPINION The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101, in accordance with the analysis of the Guidance. Final Act. 2. The Appellant disagrees, and argues independent claims 1, 10, and 16 together.4 Thus, we deem independent claim 1 as representative, and address the disputed issues below. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(iv) (2013). Alice Step One, Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1 As to independent claim 1, the Examiner determines that the claim recites an abstract idea in the groupings of “mental processes and a method 4 In addition to the Guidance, the Appellant refers to July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (July 2015), which is an update to 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility (December 2014). Appeal Br. 12- 13. However, the Patent Office subsequently issued the Guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), which includes the body of case law decided after the 2014 Interim Guidance. The Patent Office has also issued the October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (October 2019), which further updates the Guidance. Accordingly, we refer to the Guidance and the October 2019 Update in the present appeal. See also Ans. 13 (claims are rejected “per the Revised 2019 Memorandum which supersedes the previous guidance.”). Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 6 of organizing human activity.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner determines that the recited steps “could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper” by a trainer or a coach. Final Act. 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner determines that the steps of: generating a radar chart; generating an initial set of numeric values; determining a set of activities for the user to perform; receiving user input; detecting movement and surrounding environment; generating movement, environment, and user activity data; modifying the initial set of numeric values; modifying activities based on the second set of numeric values; and generating a coaching recommendation, all involve one or more of judgment, opinion, observation, and evaluation, that “fall within the category of mental processes,” and can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Final Act. 3-4; see also Ans. 14-15. The Examiner also determines that such steps “can also be reasonably characterized as managing personal interactions . . . between the trainer/coach and the trainee,” and “constitutes a particular type of organizing human activity.” Final Act. 5. Thus, the Examiner determines that the noted limitations recite one or more abstract ideas that “fall squarely within the mental processes and methods of organizing human activity categories” of the Guidance. Final Act. 5. We agree with the Examiner that the claims at issue recite an abstract idea. Certain claims that recite collecting and analyzing information may be treated as mental processes within the abstract idea category. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (explaining that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 7 mental processes within the abstract-idea category). Moreover, the court has held that: The focus of the asserted claims . . . is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. . . . [W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this regard, the Revised Guidance provides the following guidance: If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14; see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”). The Appellant argues that a “trainer or coach cannot follow a person around to collect personal data. Even if such observation is possible for a trainer for a small duration, it is not feasible for the trainer to perform such monitoring operation.” Appeal Br. 16. However, the Appellant does not persuasively establish why such observation is not possible for a trainer, who can be next to the person as the person exercises, for example, using gym equipment. We also note that there is no temporal restriction in the claim as to the required duration of monitoring. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 8 The Appellant argues that a “trainer or coach cannot determine a person’s physical information, which is measured based on sensor measurements, based on mere observation.” Appeal Br. 15. The Appellant further argues that the “Examiner has not shown how generation of sensor data can be performed by human activity. . . . [T]he sensor-related operations are exclusively performed by the activity monitoring device of the instant claims and cannot be performed by humans.” Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 8-11. However, the Appellant’s reliance on the limitations reciting sensors and sensor data is insufficient as to the analysis under Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1. Specifically, the Examiner determines that most of the limitations set forth in method claim 1 recite one or more abstract ideas in the groups of mental processes and/or methods of organizing human activity. Final Act. 5. In order to satisfy Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1, the Examiner needs to identify a recitation that falls within a grouping of abstract ideas. Yet, the Appellant only addresses those limitations reciting sensors or sensor data, while failing to address the other limitations determined by the Examiner as reciting an abstract idea. For example, it is not apparent why the recited step of “determining a set of activities for the user to perform that improve the wellness indicators corresponding to one or more of the plurality of dimensions of the radar chart” cannot be performed mentally, with or without pen and paper, or why this step cannot be performed by a coach interacting with the user. In addition, it is not apparent why the recited step of “generating a coaching recommendation based on the second set of numeric values” cannot be performed based on a metal determination by a coach or via interacting with the user, using observed information corresponding to the factors represented by the wellness indicators. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 9 Thus, the Appellant fails to persuade us that the Examiner’s determination as to Step 2A, Prong 1 is deficient, and we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 2. Alice Step One, Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2 Under Prong 2 of the Guidance, we do not assume that claims reciting an abstract idea are directed to patent ineligible subject matter because “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.’” In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) quoting Alice (quoting Mayo). Instead, “the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Guidance. If the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea, then the inquiry proceeds to the second step of the Alice framework. Id. The Guidance instructs that the “directed to” issue is to be analyzed as to whether the claims include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 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 beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Guidance. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 10 As to independent claim 1, the Examiner determines that “[t]he implied ‘computer,’ ‘activity monitoring device’ and ‘set of sensors’, are recited at a high level of generality,” and these “additional elements are recited as generic, or part of generic computing devices, performing their generic functions, performing generic computer functions of generating data, determining data, receiving data, detecting data, modifying data and displaying data.” Final Act. 5-7; see also Ans. 20. As such, the Examiner also determines that “[t]he claim only generically recites the use of the additional elements and they do not meaningfully limit the claim.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner further determines that “[t]he claimed steps of receiving user input, detecting movement and surrounding environment, and generating sensor data and user activity are generic steps of data gathering which represent insignificant pre-solution activities” to the judicial exception, as is “the end result of displaying data (data presentation).” Final Act. 7. Accordingly, the Examiner determines that “none of the limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.” Final Act. 8. The Appellant argues that “the claimed features are integrated into an activity monitoring device,” which “can be a specialized computing system, such as a wearable device or a smartwatch, or a specialized application running on a mobile device.” Appeal Br. 17. According to the Appellant, “[s]ince wellness systems are extensively used by users, the claimed multidimensional wellness system is a practical application that is executed by the activity monitoring device for the user.” Appeal Br. 17-18; see also Appeal Br. 23 (“wellness systems, both in software and hardware, are almost ubiquitous. Therefore, Appellant respectfully submits that the wellness system on the activity monitoring device of the instant application is directed to a practical application.”); Reply Br. 10. Thus, the Appellant argues that Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 11 “by integrating a multidimensional wellness system, the claim limitations of the instant claim integrate the supposed judicial exception into a practical application,” and that analysis under Alice Step Two is not required. Appeal Br. 18, 22. These arguments are unpersuasive. First, we observe that claim 1 recites “[a] computer-executable method.” Accordingly, the Appellant’s argument focusing on “multidimensional wellness system” is misdirected.5 In addition, the fact that a “wearable device or a smartwatch, or a specialized application running on a mobile device” is used extensively in wellness environments does not establish that the claimed method is integrated into a practical application, especially considering a general computer is extensively used in many modern environments, including in wellness. However, generic recitations to computers and similar structures and devices are insufficient to incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application. In that regard, whereas the various limitations of claim 1 do recite “an activity monitoring device” and “a set of sensors,” the Examiner is correct that the activity monitoring device is claimed at a high level of generality. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is 5 We note that independent claim 10 recites “[a] non-transitory computer- readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a computer causes the computer to perform a method” that generally corresponds to the method recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.). Independent claim 16, while reciting “[a] computing system comprising: one or more processors; [and] a memory,” then recites “a computer-readable medium,” that generally corresponds to the medium recited in claim 16. Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.). Indeed, the Appellant acknowledges that “[m]uch of the subject matter taught in independent claim 1 . . . also appears” in independent claims 10 and 16. Appeal Br. 10. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 12 viewed as no more than a generic computing device performing generic computing functions. The set of sensors, as per the instant Specification, may include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a digital compass, a light sensor, a thermometer, a pedometer, a heart rate monitor, a barometer, GPS sensors, and a microphone. The use of generic sensors to collect data represents insignificant extra-solution activity. Ans. 24 (emphasis added). The integration of the judicial exception into a practical application is not simply satisfied by implementing the claimed method in a known system or device. See Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind.”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” is insufficient to confer eligibility.); see also Ans. 23. Indeed, the Appellant does not direct us to where in the Specification, nor is it apparent to us, how the limitations of claim 1 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As the Examiner points out, the Appellant “does not provide any technical evidence,” in support of its argument, and instead, concedes that “wellness systems are extensively used by users,” and “both in software and hardware, are almost ubiquitous.” Ans. 17; Appeal Br. 17, 23. Accordingly, as noted by the Examiner, the Appellant actually “supports the finding that the additional claim elements recited at a high level of generality are used in their generic capacities, [and] do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” Ans. 33. Claim 1’s recitation of a generic “activity monitoring device” and “a set of sensors” to “detect” and “generate” data and information in accordance with a method, which can be executed by a trainer mentally or Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 13 using pen and paper, does not sufficiently establish that the recited method integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, claim 1 generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., the field of wellness coaching. The Appellant responds that “a generic computing device is not typically equipped with the sensors” noted by the Examiner and disclosed in the Specification, “[f]or example, a generic off-the-shelf laptop or a desktop computer is not typically equipped with these sensors.” Reply Br. 19. Moreover, the Appellant argues that “programming alone would not transform a generic computer into ‘the activity monitoring device’ of the instant application.” Reply Br. 24. It is not apparent why the recited claim would be limited to an “off- the-shelf laptop or a desktop computer.” As emphasized above, the Examiner’s position is that the claim recites “a generic computing device,” not a laptop or a desktop computer. In that regard, the Appellant does not argue or establish that the claims are limited to an “off-the-shelf laptop or a desktop computer.” It is well-established that smartphones are handheld, portable computing devices. It is also well-known in the art that smartphones and smartwatches do include sensors, including an accelerometer, a pedometer, a heart rate monitor, a light sensor, a GPS sensor, and a microphone. Moreover, the Appellant acknowledged that smartphones, smartwatches, or other such “wellness systems, both in software and hardware, [which] are almost ubiquitous,” and “extensively used by users.” Appeal Br. 17-18, 23. In our assessment, the Examiner is correct that: Contrary to Appellant’s unsupported assertions, the claimed invention is not: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 14 computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Ans. 25. The Appellant also argues that “the claimed features are, at least, directed to an unconventional and comprehensive way of providing a wellness system.” Appeal Br. 18. However, such argument based on novelty and non-obviousness is not dispositive as to its patent eligibility. Indeed, even if the method of claim 1 is “‘[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’” that in and of itself, is not sufficient to establish eligibility. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013)). To the contrary, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Ans. 22. The Appellant further relies on numerous court precedents to argue that the invention of claim 1 is patent eligible and not directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 18. In particular, the Appellant argues that claim 1 is directed to a specific implementation of a solution in the software arts in accordance with Enfish. Appeal Br. 18. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). According to the Appellant, Enfish holds that “when claims are directed to improvements in computer functionality, such claims are not directed to an abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 18. The Appellant argues that “[a]s in Enfish, the focus of the claims in the instant application is on improvements in an activity monitoring device belonging Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 15 to a user (e.g., a wearable device, a smartwatch, an application on a mobile device, etc.),” and by considering “multiple dimensions of the wellness of a user,” the invention “improve[s] the accuracy of the radar chart by modifying the radar chart based on the sensor data . . . the user input, and user activity data.” Appeal Br. 19; see also Appeal Br. 21-22 (“the claimed limitations allow an activity monitoring device to provide a recommendation with improved efficiency . . . and accuracy.”). Thus, the Appellant asserts that “the claimed system solves a technical problem of efficiently incorporating sensor data of an activity monitoring device to multiple dimensions of the wellness of the user of the activity monitoring device,” and that “the claimed features are directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself and hence, are not directed to an abstract idea and qualify as eligible subject matter.” Appeal Br. 19, 22. We are unpersuaded by the Appellant’s argument. First, we again note that claim 1 is directed to a method, and not a “device” or a “system.” Additionally, in Enfish, the Federal Circuit considered “whether the focus of the claims is on a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., a self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. The court in Enfish concluded that “the plain focus of the claims was on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Unlike Enfish wherein the claimed invention improved a computer’s function, it is not apparent how the present claims, including the recited set of sensors and sensor data provided thereby, improve the function of a computing device such as an activity monitoring device, for example, by Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 16 improving its speed, performance, or capabilities. Instead, claim 1 is focused on a method for taking into consideration, “multiple dimensions,” i.e. various factors, which contribute to the wellness of a user, and using relevant information from the sensors to enhance the accuracy of the provided results, i.e., the coaching recommendation. A generic activity monitoring device and a set of sensors are used as tools to attain this improvement. Thus, as the Examiner points out, in Enfish, The court found that the “plain focus of the claims” [] was on an improvement to computer functionality itself (a self- referential table for a computer database, designed to improve the way a computer carries out its basic functions of storing and retrieving data), not on a task for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Ans. 27. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the “Appellant’s explanation does not establish how any enhancement in computer functionality is reflected in the language of the claim; rather, any alleged enhancement appears to be derived solely from automating the recited process, and the claim recites this automation at a high level of generality.” Ans. 27. As the Examiner points out, unlike Enfish, the focus of claim 1 is not on improving a computer or a computing device, i.e., an activity monitoring device, but instead, is focused on a method in which such a device is “invoked merely as a tool.” Ans. 27. The claimed method does not improve the functionality of a computer or an activity monitoring device, and the Appellant’s assertions to the contrary, and its reliance on Enfish, are unpersuasive. The Appellant also relies on McRO, but its reliance on McRO is unpersuasive for similar reasons. Appeal Br. 20 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 17 Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Appellant argues that “unlike a conventional wellness system, the claimed features incorporate sensor data of an activity monitoring device to multiple dimensions of the wellness of the user of the activity monitoring device.” Appeal Br. 19. The Appellant asserts that “[b]y incorporating the multiple dimensions of wellness in an inter-related way (e.g., in a radar chart) and increasing the accuracy of the associated data, the independent claims of the instant application are limited to a specific process of facilitating a wellness system on the activity monitoring device.” Appeal Br. 19-20. Accordingly, the Appellant argues that “[t]herefore, as in McRO, the instant claims are not directed to an abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 20. However, as explained by the Examiner, “[i]n McRO the court asked whether the claim as a whole ‘focus[es] on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology’ or is ‘directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery.’” Ans. 28 (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15 (which cites Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336)). Thus, the analysis applied in McRO is essentially the same as that of Enfish, and as such, the Appellant’s reliance on McRO is likewise unpersuasive. As the Examiner further explains, “[t]he claims in McRO were directed to a system of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated characters, and the court concluded that the computerized system in McRO operated by rules whose implementation was not previously available manually.” Ans. 28 (citing McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316). We agree with the Examiner that: Unlike McRO . . . the focus of the claim as a whole here is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea, because the claimed additional elements (i.e., “activity monitoring device” and “set of sensors”) are merely invoked as Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 18 tools for automating facilitating a multidimensional wellness coaching program and recommendation. Ans. 28. The Appellant also relies on DDR Holdings to argue that claim 1 is patent-eligible. Appeal Br. 20 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.¸ 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The Appellant points out that in DDR Holdings, “[t]he Federal Circuit found the claims at issue to be patent eligible because ‘the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.’” Appeal Br. 20 (quoting DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d 1257). The Appellant argues that “[a]s in DDR Holdings, the claimed solution of the instant application is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of an activity monitoring device.” Appeal Br. 20. According to the Appellant, “[b]y generating suggestions based on multiple dimensions of a user’s wellness, as represented in a radar chart, and incorporating sensor and activity data to facilitate higher accuracy of the radar chart, the wellness system enhances the activity monitoring device.” Appeal Br. 20. However, it is not apparent what technical problem the invention of claim 1 overcomes. The claimed invention provides enhancement to the coaching recommendation by using a generic activity monitoring device and generic set of sensors as tools. We again agree with the Examiner that the claimed computer-implemented method “does not provide a solution ‘necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising” in a technical realm, but [r]ather, facilitating a multidimensional wellness coaching program and recommendation belonging to a user, even if done so accurately and efficiently with a computer, is not a Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 19 “technological process” to be improved because, as claimed, the facilitating a multidimensional wellness coaching program and recommendation could be made by a human using pen and paper. Ans. 29. Therefore, the Appellant’s reliance on the above noted cases is unpersuasive. In view of the above considerations, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, and “[b]ecause the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception.” Ans. 25. Accordingly, we proceed to Alice Step Two analysis. Alice Step Two, Guidance Step 2B In accordance with Alice, we next “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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. According to the Examiner, “the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception” to the generic computer and activity monitoring device, and does not establish a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Final Act. 8. The Examiner again points to the generic nature of the recited computer components and the insignificant extra-solution activity of the recited steps. Final Act. 8. Thus, the Examiner determines that “[t]he claim limitations do not recite any technological implementations details for any of the claim steps,” and “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 technical/technological problem.” Final Act. 9. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 20 We agree with the Examiner for the reasons stated and for reasons similar to those discussed above relative to Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2. The first two limitations of claim 1 recite “generating, by the activity monitoring device.” The fourth recitation recites “receiving . . . from the activity monitoring device.” The fifth limitation recites “detecting, by a set of sensors.” These are the only structural limitations in claim 1. As discussed, the limitations directed to the activity monitoring device and the set of sensors are merely generically recited in claim 1, and generally described in the Specification, demonstrating that they are conventional and well-understood. These two limitations within the claimed method of claim 1, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” as required to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible invention. Instead, claim 1 simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicially excepted abstract idea of assessing various parameters of a user’s wellness and providing a coaching recommendation taking into consideration various wellness factors and information. Relying on BASCOM, the Appellant argues that claim 1, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 24 (citing BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Appellant asserts that “[s]imilar to BASCOM, the claimed features are directed to a specific, discrete implementation of a wellness system on an activity monitoring device.” Appeal Br. 24. The Appellant argues that Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 21 Since the system of the instant application generates recommendation in a unique and specific way (e.g., based on multiple dimensions of a user’s wellness) . . . the system of the instant application is not generic or conventional, and is a specific, discrete implementation of the idea of generating recommendations based on multiple dimensions of a user’s wellness in an inter-related way. Appeal Br. 24. However, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is “unlike the claims considered by the court in BASCOM . . . in which the court found ‘an inventive concept . . . in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.’” Ans. 34 (quoting BASCOM, 827 F.3d 1350). As the Examiner further explains, in claim 1, “none of the claimed steps have been shown to address a technological problem,” and “[u]nlike the filtering system improvements in BASCOM that added significantly more to the abstract idea by improving the performance of the computer system itself, the claimed invention here merely uses generic computing components to implement an abstract idea, i.e., facilitating a multidimensional wellness coaching program and recommendation.” Ans. 34-35. As already discussed, the use of sensors and sensor data in an activity monitoring device in accordance with the claimed method merely improves the resultant recommendation, and does not improve the performance of the activity monitoring device or the sensors. The Appellant further asserts that claim 1 is “[s]imilar to the patent- eligible claims of Classen” because claim 1 is directed to a specific, tangible application, and thus, is patent-eligible. Appeal Br. 25 (citing Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). However, we note that Classen was decided prior to Alice, and is clearly distinguishable from the facts on appeal. In particular, as the Appellant Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 22 acknowledges, the patent-eligibility in Classen was decided based on the claim recitation requiring “the subsequent step of immunization on an optimum schedule” that the court determined as being directed to a specific, tangible application so as to render the claim patent-eligible. Classen, 659 F.3d at 1067. Appeal Br. 25. No analogous step is recited in claim 1 requiring actually doing anything specific and tangible, except for merely “displaying the set of activities and coaching recommendation on the activity monitoring device.” Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.). Despite arguments of the Appellant to the contrary, the Examiner is correct that “displaying different types or sets of information from various sources on a generic display is abstract absent a specific improvement to the way computers or other technologies operate,” i.e., fails to transform the nature of claim 1 into a patent-eligible application. Ans. 18 (citing Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54); see Appeal Br. 16 (“It is unclear how displaying a recommendation can be ‘extra-solution,’” and “should be given weight while determining the eligibility of the instant claims.”). Indeed, as the court explained: the claims’ invocation of computers, networks, and displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent- eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces, but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (internal quotations omitted). Similarly, claim 1’s invocation of a conventional “activity monitoring device” and a conventional “a set of sensors,” and recitation of displaying Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 23 the activities and the coaching recommendation on a display of the activity monitoring device, fail to transform the nature of the claims into a patent- eligible application. The Appellant also asserts that the Examiner’s reliance on Electric Power Group is incomplete and improper because it fails to consider all of the limitations in claim 1, which “generates new values representing the dimensions, modifies recommended activities accordingly, and generates a corresponding coaching recommendation.” Reply Br. 13-14. However, the Appellant fails to appreciate that such steps of generating new values, modifying the recommended activities, and generating a coaching recommendation, are all the result of further processing the initial values using additional information, i.e., from generic sensors. The recited method does not require any nonconventional activity monitoring device, sensors, or display components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of such conventional devices or components, “but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355. The Appellant further asserts that displaying a visual representation of the radar chart amounts to significantly more because it is “a unique . . . way of representing data.” Reply Br. 27. However, it cannot be reasonably disputed that radar charts are well-known and commonly used to graphically illustrate a metric that involves numerous different parameters or variables. Display of a radar chart, to any extent that such display is actually required by claim 1, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea recited within the claim, which can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, or alternatively, is a type of organizing human activity. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 24 Moreover, as already noted, novelty cannot serve the basis for establishing patent-eligibility. Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that the elements of the claims, both individually and as an ordered combination, fail to transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. In addition, as noted, the Appellant does not separately argue independent claims 10 and 16, which are similar to claim 1, and thus, these claims fall with claim 1. Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 The Appellant also asserts that the dependent claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 25-27. However, the Appellant essentially points out what these dependent claims recite in terms of additional function that the claimed invention provides or additional steps the invention performs. For example, dependent claim 2 recites: The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a suggested goal along a particular dimension of the plurality of dimensions using data obtained from a user model and a program for health and wellness of the user, wherein the user model includes data describing the user; and providing the suggested goal to the user. Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.). Relative to claim 2, and similar dependent claims 11 and 17, the Appellant argues that the claimed invention “can also present a goal for a particular dimension of the multidimensional wellness indicator (e.g., the radar chart) based on data on the user. Such an operation generates a new Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 25 piece of data, which is not simply an organization of any collected data.” Appeal Br. 25-26; see also Reply Br. 25-26. However, it is not apparent how such generation of a suggested goal based on data on the user, and providing the suggested goal to the user, substantively impacts the judicial exception analysis discussed above relative to claim 1. Collecting and further processing additional information regarding the user to generate a suggested goal can, again, be performed in the mind, with or without pen and paper, and then be provided to the user. Such generation of a suggested goal is neither a practical application of the abstract idea, nor result in transforming the nature of the claim into a patent- eligible application. As the Examiner notes, “[h]umans such as a health practitioner . . . have long generated information such as suggested goal (opinion, judgement) and user health program (opinion, judgement) using additional information such as model data, and subsequently provided the suggested goal (opinion),” and as such, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Ans. 36. We have reviewed the Appellant’s arguments directed to the remaining dependent claims 3-9, 12-15, and 18-20, and similarly fail to see how the recitations therein substantively impacts the judicial exception analysis discussed above relative to claim 1. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as set forth in the Final Action, and as further explained in the Answer. Final Act. 10; Ans. 36-40. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of the dependent claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. Appeal 2021-002437 Application 15/130,770 26 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 101 Eligibility 1-20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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) (2013). AFFIRMED