The Toronto-Dominion Bank

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2022

2021003397 (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. 15/398,824 01/05/2017 Stephen John McCann G4144-00025 4787 39290 7590 03/07/2022 Duane Morris LLP - Washington, D.C. 505 9th Street N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 EXAMINER DING, CHUNLING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 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): DC_IPDocketing@duanemorris.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEPHEN JOHN MCCANN, ARTHUR CARROLL CHOW, PERRY AARON JONES HALDENBY, RAKESH THOMAS JETHWA, JOHN JONG SUK LEE, and PAUL MON-WAH CHAN ____________ Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Stephen John McCann, Arthur Carroll Chow, Perry Aaron Jones Haldenby, Rakesh Thomas Jethwa, John Jong Suk Lee, and Paul Mon-Wah 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed December 7, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 3, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 2, 2021), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 6, 2020). Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 2 Chan (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-21, 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 initiate, approve, and execute exchanges of data between network-connected devices in a computing environment. Specification para. 1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. An apparatus, comprising: [0.1] a storage unit storing instructions; [0.2] a communications module; and [0.3] at least one processor coupled to the communications module and the storage unit, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to: [1] receive, through the communications module, data from a terminal device, the data being associated with a transaction initiated at the terminal device, and the data comprising a value of a parameter that characterizes the transaction and first cryptographic data associated with the terminal device; 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 Toronto- Dominion Bank (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 3 [2] load second cryptographic data associated with the terminal device from the storage unit, and when the first cryptographic data corresponds to the second cryptographic data, validate an identity of the terminal device; [3] in response to the validation of the identity of the terminal device, identify a payment instrument based on the parameter value and on preference data identifying one or more transaction preferences; [4] access ledger data corresponding to a block-chain ledger, the ledger data comprising one or more ledger blocks, and the one or more ledger blocks tracking prior transactions involving the identified payment instrument; [5] determine, based on the accessed ledger data and on the parameter value, that the identified payment instrument is available for use in the transaction; [6] transmit, via the communications module to the terminal device, in response to the determination, a message confirming the availability of the identified payment instrument; and [7] execute the transaction in accordance with the parameter value and using the identified payment instrument, wherein the message is transmitted to the terminal device prior to the execution of the transaction. Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 4 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Symonds US 2004/0079799 A1 Apr. 29, 2004 Hariramani US 2013/0024371 A1 Jan. 24, 2013 Clark US 2016/0253663 A1 Sept. 1, 2016 Beelen US 2016/0267476 Al Sept. 15, 2016 Davis US 2016/0342989 A1 Nov. 24, 2016 Chen US 2017 /0302669 A1 Oct. 19, 2017 Claims 1-3 and 5-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.3 Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 13-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hariramani, Clark, Chen, Symonds, and Beelen. Claims 8-12 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hariramani, Clark, Chen, Symonds, Beelen, and Davis. I ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. 3 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) (Final Action 5-8) were withdrawn (Answer 4). Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 5 The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes the validation recited in limitation 2. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES Facts Related to the Prior Art Hariramani 01. Hariramani is directed to electronic offer optimization and redemption apparatuses, methods and systems. Hariramani para. 7. 02. Hariramani describes a user using a wallet account for a purchase. The user presents his mobile wallet account at the point of sale terminal. The user or user wallet device sends purchase input information to a client which sends the purchase order message to the Merchant Server. Hariramani para. 113. 03. Hariramani describes the PoS client providing a transaction authorization input, to the Pay Network server. In some embodiments, the transaction authorization input may be provided from the Merchant server to the Pay Network server. In embodiments where the user utilizes a plastic card instead of the user wallet device, the user may swipe the plastic card at the PoS client to transfer information from the plastic card into the PoS client, and then further to the Pay Network server. Hariramani para. 115. Clark 04. Clark is directed to utilizing transaction signing via asymmetric cryptography and a private ledger. Clark para. 2. Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 6 05. Clark describes a centralized Transaction Verification and Accounting Module (TVAM) in a Transaction Verification Account Module System that can manage funds for prepaid accounts in a ledger. Unlike the distributed and publicly available Bitcoin blockchain, the ledger that is used in embodiments of the invention can be privately managed (i.e., it is not a public ledger). The ledger may optionally be used with conventional payment accounts with available funds or credit. The details of records in the ledger can be provided to issuers associated with the particular accounts, but not be made generally available to the public. Clark para. 14. 06. Clark describes the ledger being in the form of a blockchain, comprised of a series of blocks of transactions that are created and verified by the TVAM. Each block in the blockchain may include a reference to the previous block (e.g., a hash output of a previous block), metadata, and a list of transactions. The blockchain can be updated using techniques known in the art as additional transactions are received and processed. Clark para. 58. Chen 07. Chen is directed to allowing objects to be sensed and controlled remotely across a network, creating opportunities for more direct integration between the physical world and computer-based systems, and resulting in improved efficiency, accuracy, and economic benefit. Chen para. 1. 08. Chen describes a management device authenticating a mobile device by comparing the mobile device key, received from mobile Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 7 device, to a mobile device key stored by the management device. Chen para. 70. Symonds 09. Symonds is directed to an improved car wash device, system. Symonds para. 2. 10. Symonds describes receiving credit card payment information for payment of a fueling transaction. A customer enters a credit or debit card for payment of fuel. The fuel dispenser communicates the credit or debit card payment information to the POS controller, which communicates this card information to a remote processing center. The remote processing center determines if the credit card information is valid and returns an authorization message to the POS if the credit card can be used for payment of fuel. The POS sends an authorization message to the particular fuel dispenser that initiated the credit card transaction for payment of fuel. Symonds para. 42. Beelen 11. Beelen is directed to approving a transaction comprising: inputting a user-name and a password corresponding to a user account, generating a random key and generating a secure key. Beelen para. 1. 12. Beelen describes using an electronic device to access one’s account by inputting a username and modifier code. A server checks if the account exists and if the check has a positive outcome, the server generates a random key and sends it back to the electronic device. The electronic device further generates a secure Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 8 key based on the random key and modifier code and displays it as an electronic readable image. A service provider has a POS system at their premises that is capable to read said image format and retrieve the secure key which is further sent together with said POS ID code back to the server. The server will check the identity of said POS in its database and if said secure key is the same as the one generated by said server. Beelen paras. 158-59. 13. Beelen describes the server having a database with registered POS ID codes. If the POS ID is not found in the database of the server, the transaction is refused. If the secure key is not the same as the one generated by said server, the server will send a message back to the POS system and ask for a new code. If the secure key is the same as the one generated by said server, said server will open a transaction on the account. Beelen paras. 160-63. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3 and 5-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 14 Claim 1, as an apparatus claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although claim 1 is nominally an apparatus claim, it recites three generic 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 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 9 computer parts, viz, storage, communication, and processor, followed by the series of process steps forming the claim substance. Claim 1 is therefore a method claim in substance. Accordingly we will refer to claim 1 as a method claim from this point forward in this rejection. 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) (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 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 Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 10 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 1 recites receiving data, loading data, validating terminal identity data, identifying payment instrument data, accessing ledger data, determining availability of payment instrument data for use, transmitting message data, and executing a payment transaction. Loading data is storing data. Validating, identifying, and determining data availability are rudimentary forms of data analysis. Accessing data is receiving data. Executing a transaction is data processing. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, storing, analyzing, transmitting, and processing data. None of the limitations recites 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 1 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 extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 11 include (1) mathematical concepts5, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity6, and (3) mental processes7. Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of managing commercial payment transactions. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to process payments with an available payment instrument and post the payment to a ledger. The advice to process payments with an available payment instrument and post the payment to a ledger involves using a payment instrument, which is an economic act, and posting a payment to a ledger, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 1 recites “execute the transaction . . . using the identified payment instrument,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is processing a payment. Similarly, claim 1 recites “access ledger data,” which is also characteristic of payment processing. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to a series of steps identifying a payment instrument and processing the transaction by using the 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 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 12 identified payment instrument, which is a process that deals with making a payment transaction, as part of commercial interaction. Final Act. 9-10. The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the steps in claim 1 result in managing commercial payment transactions by processing payments with an available payment instrument and posting the payment to a ledger absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitation 1 recites receiving data. Limitations 2-7 recite generic and conventional receiving, storing, analyzing, transmitting, and processing of payment data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for processing payments with an available payment instrument and posting the payment to a ledger. To advocate processing payments with an available payment instrument and posting the payment to a ledger is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to initiating, approving, and executing exchanges of data between network- connected devices in a computing environment. This is in the context of payment systems. Today, payment systems and related technologies continuously evolve in response to advances in payment instruments, such as the ongoing transition from physical transaction cards to digital payment instruments maintained on mobile devices and to digital currencies decoupled from an underlying fiat currency. These innovations result in additional mechanisms for submitting payment to an electronic or physical merchant, and extend beyond the capabilities of card-based point-of-sale (POS) devices disposed at merchant locations. Spec. para. 2. Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 13 Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites managing commercial payment transactions. 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 commercial payment transactions is a commercial interaction between buyer and seller. The concept of managing commercial payment transactions by processing payments with an available payment instrument and posting the payment to a ledger is one idea for allowing different ways of payment. The steps recited in claim 1 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. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (creating a transaction performance guaranty for a commercial transaction on computer networks such as the Internet); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2013) (generating rule-based tasks for processing an insurance claim). From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites managing commercial payment transactions by processing payments with an available payment instrument and posting the payment to a ledger, 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 1 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 14 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). 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. Step 1 is a pure data gathering step. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 2, 4, and 6 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Steps 2, 3, 5, and 7 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. As to the recital of a block chain, a block chain per se is generic and conventional and is essentially an accounting ledger. The claims do not recite any technological implementation details. Instead the claims recite no more than the conceptual idea of using a block chain for storage. Appellant do not contend they invented block chain technology. 8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 15 Similarly, the recital of cryptographic data is both generic and conventional. Such recital does no more than invoke the conceptual idea of cryptography without reciting any technological application or implementation details. 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 1 simply recites the concept of managing commercial payment transactions by processing payments with an available payment instrument and posting the payment to a ledger 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 do not recite any particular implementation. 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). Claim 1 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 Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 16 generic equipment9 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing commercial payment transactions by processing payments with an available payment instrument and posting the payment to a ledger under different scenarios. It does not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing commercial payment transactions by processing payments with an available payment instrument and posting the payment to a ledger 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 9 The Specification describes a personal computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a hand-held computer, a personal digital assistant, a portable navigation device, a mobile phone, a smart phone, and a wearable computing device. Spec. para. 26. Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 17 environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of managing commercial payment transactions by advising one to process payments with an available payment instrument and post the payment to a ledger, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within 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 1 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. [T]he 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 “implemen[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 featur[e]” that provides any Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 18 “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) (brackets 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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for receiving, storing, analyzing, transmitting, and processing 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). Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 19 Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-storage-analysis- transmission- processing 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 transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, 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 1 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 1 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.’ Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 20 Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. 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 legal interaction of managing commercial payment transactions by advising one to process payments with an available payment instrument and post the payment to a ledger, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Final Action 9-12 and Answer 4-12 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Office's broad interpretation of Appellant's independent claims is inconsistent with Appellant's specification, as the Office's analysis fails to account for the specific, technological improvements to digital electronic payment processes and systems, for example, by enabling the determination, in real-time and contemporaneously with an initiation of a transaction, an availability of a payment instrument tracked within the immutable and cryptographically secure ledger blocks of a block-chain ledger, the transmission of a confirmation of the availability of that payment instrument prior to the execution of the transaction, and the generation of an updated version of the block-chain ledger that reflects the transaction. Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 21 Reply Br. 11. We make determinations above under Step 2A Prong 1 showing how the claims are interpreted consistent with the Specification. No technological implementation details, much less improvements are recited. Instead, the claims recite conventional and generic receiving, storing, analyzing, transmitting, and processing data. The improvements listed stem from the concepts of using cryptographic encoding and block chain ledgers. Checking availability is conventional data lookup. Transmitting a confirmation is conventional receipt printing. Generating an updated ledger is conventional accounting. Again, no technological implementation or application details are recited. All recited operations are conceptual ideas applied by conventional computer operations. For similar reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner appears to be misunderstanding Appellant's remarks as to why the independent claims represent meaningful, unconventional limitations that, when taken as a whole, represent a specific technological improvement to existing digital electronic payment processes and systems, which, for example, initiate, approve, and execute data exchanges between various computing systems and terminal devices within a computer-networked environment in a specific manner. Reply Br. 12. The recited manner is specific only in the sense it is specified with words. Being in a computer-networked environment 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, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 22 Appellant also attempts to analogize the claims to those involved in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 14-15. 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 v. Iatric Systems, 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (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.” 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 payment decisions in a new environment. Appellant has not argued that the claimed processes of selecting products 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. Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 23 FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094 (citations omitted) (brackets in original). As to separately argued claims 11 and 12, Reply Br. 16-17, Appellant repeats and relies on the above arguments which are equally unpersuasive here. Claims 2 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention This rejection is uncontested. See Reply Brief 2 Footnote 1; Answer 4. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 13-19, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hariramani, Clark, Chen, Symonds, and Beelen We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that none of the Examiner’s determinations “teaches or suggests processes that ‘load second cryptographic data associated with the terminal device from the storage unit, and when the first cryptographic data corresponds to the second cryptographic data, validate an identity of the terminal device,’ as recited by independent claim 1.” Reply Br. 4. None of the Examiner’s findings show this limitation in the art. Claims 8-12 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hariramani, Clark, Chen, Symonds, Beelen, and Davis These claims depend from those in the prior rejection. Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 24 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is uncontested. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 13-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hariramani, Clark, Chen, Symonds, and Beelen is improper. The rejection of claims 8-12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hariramani, Clark, Chen, Symonds, Beelen, and Davis is improper. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-21 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5-21 101 Eligibility 1-3, 5-21 2, 11 112(b) Indefiniteness 2, 11 1-3, 5-7, 13- 19, 21 103 Hariramani, Clark, Chen, Symonds, Beelen 1-3, 5-7, 13- 19, 21 8-12, 20 103 Hariramani, Clark, Chen, Symonds, Beelen, Davis 8-12, 20 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5-21 Appeal 2021-003397 Application 15/398,824 25 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