Think Anew LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2021001606 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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. 15/620,245 06/12/2017 Don Glidewell 392512-000004 8156 47604 7590 01/14/2022 DLA PIPER LLP US ATTN: PATENT GROUP 11911 FREEDOM DR. SUITE 300 RESTON, VA 20190 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, TERESA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2022 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): PatentProsecutionRes@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DON GLIDEWELL Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as THINK ANEW LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to the “real-time monitoring of key performance indicators (‘KPI’ or ‘KPIs’) and providing KPI alerts and survey status alerts to users via push notifications (e.g., text messages).” Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification identifies a need for long-term care facilities to “receive, monitor, react to and report key indicators impacting patient care and/or the efficiency of the services provided by the facilities.” Spec. ¶ 4. The Specification also describes that it is “desirable to ensure that [a] facility receives the support it needs to fulfill survey requests on a timely basis and to predict and be alerted to subsequent visits.” Id. ¶ 5. The system and method described to meet these needs may be implemented on a website or mobile application, and “provide alerts to pre- defined individuals when KPIs fall outside of their accepted thresholds . . . accomplished without the pre-defined individuals being logged into the disclosed system.” Spec. ¶¶ 7, 26. This can be accomplished by “pushing” the “reports,” for example, “via email, text message, posted to an FTP site, or SharePoint directly to the client or other interested party.” Id. ¶ 43. Alerts may be sent, for example, by via email or text. Id. ¶¶ 40, 72. Independent claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer implemented method of real-time monitoring of a key performance indicator associated with a facility, said method comprising: inputting, at a processor, data associated with the key performance indicator, said data being input over a network connection; comparing, at the processor, the data associated with the key performance indicator to a threshold associated with the key performance indicator; Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 3 when the data associated with the key performance indicator exceeds the threshold, said method comprises: generating a message or report for the key performance indicator, and pushing the message or report, via a first communication mechanism, to at least one first device capable of receiving and displaying the message or report, said at least one first device being associated with a user associated with the key performance indicator, the message or report can be received by the user even when the user is not logged into a system for implementing said method; said method further comprising: inputting, at the processor, an indication that a survey status alert must be issued; generating, at the processor, the survey status alert based on pre-stored information input from a storage medium, the survey status alert indicating that a survey team entered the facility; and transmitting the survey status alert, via a second communication mechanism, to at least one second device capable of receiving and displaying the survey status alert, said at least one second device being associated with one or more personnel associated with the survey status alert, the survey status alert can be received by one or more personnel even when the one or more personnel are not logged into the system. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lacy US 2014/0324448 A1 Oct. 30, 2014 Burkley US 2006/0158329 Al July 20, 2006 Setlur US 2012/0130730 Al May 24, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as reciting ineligible subject matter. Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 4 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lacy and Burkley. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lacy, Burkley, and Setlur. OPINION Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 as a group. Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 2-4. We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 35 U.S.C. § 101 Framework Section 101 An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 5 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187, 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”), 191 (citing Benson and Flook) (citation omitted) Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 6 If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. USPTO Section 101 Guidance We are also guided by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Guidance, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.”), incorporated into the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE §§ 2104-06, Rev. 10.2019 (“MPEP”) in June 2020. “The guidance sets out agency policy with respect to the USPTO’s interpretation of the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. [§] 101 in view of decisions by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.2 Although “[a]ll USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance,” the Guidance “does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any 2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf). Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 7 party against the USPTO.” Id. The Guidance, by its terms, applies to all applications, and to all patents resulting from applications, filed before, on, or after January 7, 2019. Id. at 50. Under the USPTO Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including laws of nature, natural phenomena, and products of nature (see MPEP §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(b)) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see id. §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under Step 2B, to whether the additional elements, individually or in combination, provide an inventive concept. See MPEP §§ 2106(III), 2106.05. “An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’” Id. § 2106.05 (quoting Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Among the considerations in determining whether the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the exception itself, we look to whether they add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the 3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application, as the term is used in USPTO Guidance. See Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP § 2106.04(d). Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 8 field or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(II); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework Under the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework and Step 2A, Prong One of USPTO Guidance, the Examiner determines that exemplary claim 1 is directed to ineligible subject matter because it recites broadly “steps for alerting medical personnel when monitored quality assurance performance parameters or key performance indicators of a care facility are failing and need the attention of all personnel,” which represent both “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes.” Non-Final Act. 3-4. In response, Appellant asserts that the Examiner is incorrect in determining that the claims are directed to an abstract idea because “the claimed invention cannot be implemented in someone’s mind or by pen and paper.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2 (“The only way to read [the inputting, generating, and pushing limitations of claim 1] on a human is to improperly ignore most of the claim language and reach beyond the teaching’s of Appellant’s [S]pecification.”). Under the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework and Step 2A of the USPTO Guidance, we first determine to what claim 1 is directed, i.e., whether claim 1 recites an abstract idea and if so, whether claim 1 is directed to that abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 9 Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claim is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear from the Specification, including the claim language, that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field. Reciting a Judicial Exception In making this determination, we note that the Specification is titled “Method, System and Application for Monitoring Key Performance Indicators and Providing Push Notifications and Survey Status Alerts,” and provides “for the real-time monitoring of key performance indicators (‘KPI’ or ‘KPIs’) and providing KPI alerts and survey status alerts to users via push notifications (e.g., text messages).” Id. ¶ 6. Consistent with this disclosure, independent claim 1 recites “inputting data associated with the key performance indicator,” “comparing . . . the data . . . to a threshold,” “inputting . . . an indication that a survey status alert must be issued,” “generating . . . the survey status alert based on pre-stored information,” and “transmitting the survey status alert,” and, if the “key performance indicator exceeds the threshold,” “generating a message or report for the key performance indicator, and pushing the message or report . . . to at least one first device.” The alert, message, or report are sent in such a way that each “can be received by the user [or personnel] even when the user [or personnel] is not logged into a system for implementing said method.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). When considered collectively and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1, as summarized Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 10 above, recites broadly the abstract idea of “alerting medical personnel when monitored quality assurance performance parameters or key performance indicators of a care facility are failing and need the attention of all personnel” (Non-Final Act. 3-4), which may be characterized as a “[c]ertain method[] of organizing human activity . . . managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” as well as “concepts performed in the human mind.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The courts have held similar concepts to be abstract. For example, the Federal Circuit has held abstract the concepts of customizing information based on known user information in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Capital One Bank”), customizing a user interface based on user selections in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016), collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and processing data and displaying the results of the analysis, manipulation, and processing in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis” in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and “gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results.” See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellant contends that the claim “cannot be implemented in someone’s mind or by pen and paper.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. However, we are not persuaded at least because the claimed method simply Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 11 involves gathering data (“inputting”), “comparing . . . data,” “generating a message or report” or “survey status alert,” and then “pushing the message or report” and “transmitting the survey status alert.” These steps can be performed through “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion)” mentally by a human, and delivery of messages, reports, and alerts orally or on paper. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception under the Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One, we next consider whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration into a Practical Application We look to whether the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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,” i.e., “integrates a judicial exception into a practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; MPEP § 2106.04(d). The Examiner identifies the “additional elements,”4 beyond the recited abstract ideas, as “the use of a processor, a computer and mobile device.” Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds these “additional elements” “merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Id. 4 The USPTO uses the term “additional elements” to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, n.24. Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 12 Appellant argues that “the claim as a whole integrates the [alleged] recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception,” because of the “inputting,” “pushing,” and “transmitting” limitations. Appeal Br. 10. As such, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s identification of the “additional elements” beyond the abstract idea, and does not identify any such “additional elements.” Instead, Appellant relies only on claim language that is undisputedly subsumed within the abstract idea recited in claim 1: “inputting ... data associated with the key performance indicator ... over a network connection;” “pushing the message or report, via a first communication mechanism, to at least one first device capable of receiving and displaying the message or report, ... the message or report can be received by the user even when the user is not logged into a system for implementing said method” and “transmitting the survey status alert, via a second communication mechanism, to at least one second device capable of receiving and displaying the survey status alert, ... the survey status alert can be received by one or more personnel even when the one or more personnel are not logged into the system.” Id. However, the limitations identified by Appellant (i.e., “inputting,” “pushing,” “transmitting”) all recite steps that are either data gathering or output steps, and are thus recite insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not impart subject matter eligibility. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, n.31; MPEP § 2106.05(g). Appellant also argues that “the claimed invention goes beyond the concepts of ‘using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of notifying medical personnel when key performance associated with the facility have exceeded a threshold and indicating that a survey team entered the facility” because the claim uses “hardware Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 13 interfaces (data network connection, and first and second communication mechanisms) to provide devices with a report ‘even when the user is not logged into a system for implementing said method’ and/or an alert ‘when the one or more personnel are not logged into the system,’” similar to “example 21 of the Patent Office’s patent eligible guidelines.”5 Appeal Br. 11-12. We are unpersuaded, because claim 2 of Example 21 is not comparable to what is claimed. Claim 2 of Example 21 addressed “the Internet‐centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber’s computer is offline” by a transmission of an alert to an application that “cause[d] the alert to display and enable[d] the connection of the remote subscriber computer to the data source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer comes online.” The alert activates a stock viewer application to cause the stock quote alert to display on the remote subscriber computer and to enable connection via the URL to the data source over the Internet when the wireless device is locally connected to the remote subscriber computer and the remote subscriber computer comes online. Id. Here, however, no viewer application is activated on a computer the user utilizes for the application. Instead claim 1 of the present application merely sends communications, such as via an email and text, rather than causing a particular application to initiate to view the information. See, e.g., 5 We assume Appellant refers to hypothetical claim 2 in this example, from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_1to36.p df (“2016 Examples”). Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 14 Spec. ¶¶ 40, 72, Figs. 4, 16. Appellant’s claim 1 thus is not similar to claim 2 of Example 21 insofar as representing potentially eligible subject matter. To the extent that the Appellant suggests that the inclusion of “hardware interfaces” in a claim is the governing test under the second step of the Alice framework, the Appellant misapprehends the applicable law. Indeed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent- eligible. The bare fact that a computer exists in the physical rather than purely conceptual realm is beside the point.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Appellant also argues that, similar to Example 37’s6 “improved user interface for electronic devices,” Appellant’s claimed method “provides a ‘specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.’” Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellant, as a whole, claim 1 “integrate[s] the alleged judicial exception with the practical applications of three separate network communication techniques (networked data input, pushed reports and transmission of survey status alerts). These features provide many practical advantages and technical improvements over the art.” Id. at 10. However, claim 2 of cited Example 37 recites a method of automatically rearranging icons on a graphical user interface of a computer system by “determining the amount of use of each icon using a processor 6 We assume that claim 2 is the example relied upon, from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_ 20190107.pdf. Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 15 that tracks how much memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time.” In contrast, we find nothing comparable in claim 1 here, as no user interface is improved, and we discern no other impact on computer functionality or improvement to another technology. See Ans. 4 (Claim 1 “do[es] not recite any ‘automatic arrangement or movement of GUI display icons.’”). As discussed above, we find the steps of inputting, pushing reports, and transmitting alerts to be insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of gathering data and providing output. Appellant argues that the type of alert, i.e., “survey status alerts,” should alter our determination because “the claimed survey status feature was not implemented in any fashion, let alone the claimed fashion, in the prior art.” Appeal Br. 11. However, we not that the survey status alerts are simply sent via email or text mechanisms, outside of the application that implements the method of claim 1. This does not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. To the extent the claimed method “provides a specific improvement over prior systems,” this is accomplished within the abstract idea itself. See Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (emphasis omitted). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that none of the computer-related “additional elements” integrate the abstract idea into a “practical application.” See Non-Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 3-4. As a result, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that the additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as the term is used in USPTO Guidance, and we are not Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 16 persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework Under the second step in the Alice framework and USPTO Guidance Step 2B, we “[e]valuat[e] additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept [which] requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” MPEP § 2106.05(I). We find supported the Examiner’s determination that the limitations of claim 1, taken individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Non-Final Act. 4-5. We agree with the Examiner that the additional element(s) of using a processor, a computer and mobile device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of notifying medical personnel when key performance indicators associated with a facility have exceeded a threshold and indicating that a survey team entered the facility. Id. In response, Appellant argues that like Example 357, the claims represent “something more,” and “provide an inventive concept,” because of “the unconventional integration of hardware interfaces (data network connection, and first and second communication mechanisms).” Appeal Br. 14. We disagree. At the outset, we note that claim 2 of Example 35 operates in a non- conventional and non-generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is 7 We assume claim 2 is the portion of Example 35 relied upon. Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 17 verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. See 2016 Examples at 10. That is, the unconventional process includes the ATM’s provision of a random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM’s decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis of the code data. Id. Unlike the analysis of the unconventional authentication process of Example 35’s claim 2, Appellant does not explain what is unconventional about using two different communication mechanisms to send reports and alerts, such as email and text. It is well known to communicate via multiple methods, such as email and text, for information suited to different communication methods. A report, for example, may be too large to read on a mobile phone conveniently, so that sending the report via email may be a better option. An alert that is hoped to receive immediate notice may be best suited to an SMS text message. Thus using two different communication mechanisms for two different types of information has not been established by Appellant as an unconventional use of technology, as in Example 35. Appellant does not offer additional reasoning or argument why the claim “[a]dds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that [is] not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Considered as an ordered combination, the components of Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of receiving information, analyzing information, Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 18 and providing output communicated over a network, is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354-56 (holding that the sequence of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real-time was abstract); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-65 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that sequence of sending, communicating, gathering, determining, selecting, and sending data); FairWarning IP LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2106) (holding that sequence of generating a rule related to accessing information, applying the rule, and storing and announcing the results was abstract). The ordered combination of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that the limitations of the claim do not transform the claim into significantly more than the abstract idea. We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5- 10, and 12-14, which fall with independent claim 1. Obviousness Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 8 together, and does not advance specific argument as to any of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13. Appeal Br. 15-22. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because “Burkley’s system requires all personnel to be essentially logged into its system via issued equipment.” Appeal Br. 16-17. More particularly, Appellant argues that the combination of Lacy and Burkley fails to discloses Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 19 or suggest the argued limitation because Burkley discloses that each “first responder is equipped with a field device 20000 that includes a portable or mobile wireless transceiver device 21000,” which operates amongst other first responders’ and the commander’s radios “in a self-configuring network.” Id. (citing Burkley ¶ 53). In response, the Examiner finds that Lacy discloses “pushing the message or report, via a first communication mechanism,” and “reporting survey status alerts to at least one second device capable of receiving and displaying the survey status alert,” but acknowledges that Lacy fails to disclose the pushing or transmitting done “regardless if the personnel are logged onto the system.” Non-Final Act. 6-7. To address this deficiency, the Examiner finds Burkley teaches communicating, “regardless if the personnel are logged onto the system,” through its network of radios. Id. at 7. For the following reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. At the outset, we note that the Specification describes that the claimed method can be implemented on an “application program,” “website,” or “online application over the Internet or other network.” Spec. ¶ 32. The Specification further discloses “an example home or login page 100 when the disclosed embodiments are implemented via a website. Users of the disclosed embodiments will require a username 110 and password 112.” Id. ¶ 33. We understand this to mean that the user must authenticate with the application program, website, or online application, and then use one of these to perform the method. The exception is for the communication “when the user is not logged into a system for implementing said method,” as Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 20 claimed. Thus, the communication originates within the application or website, but is transported through a mechanism outside that application or website. In this regard, Burkley discloses that as radios arrive at a location, they can “immediately communicate with each other and with the on-scene incident commander,” because of “instant communications in a self- configuring network.” Burkley ¶ 53. We discern no application program or website, or similar mechanism in Burkley that each user uses for communication, nor do we discern any login step that a user must perform to authenticate with the other devices. Instead, Burkley allows for immediate and instant communications, which belies that any authentication step must be performed by a user before participating in the shared communication functions. We do not agree that merely being “equipped with a field device 20000” (Burkley ¶ 53) is equivalent to logging into a system by a user, as claimed, because the issued equipment does not require any authentication action by the user to use the radio equipment. Appellant also argues that the communications in Burkley “are in the wrong direction (i.e., from the first responder to the system controller or responder to responder),” rather than being “a pushed report or transmitted survey status alert to the appropriate personnel.” Appeal Br. 17. This, according to Appellant, is because Burkley discloses a “geo-location system,” which “automatically generates and transmits regular position and position update messages to components of the command and control system 10000, for example the portable system controller 12000,” where the messages are “transmitted to the portable system controller 12000 each time Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 21 the transmitter of a responder radio is manually keyed.” Id. (citing Burkley ¶ 69) (emphasis omitted). The argument is not persuasive, however, because the Examiner is relying on communication “outside” the application program or website using Burkley’s radios, to modify Lacy’s method of sending messages and alerts. See Non-Final Act. 7 (“modify the method, software and system of Lacy to have alerting all personnel regardless if the personnel are logged onto the system”). In other words, the Examiner does not rely on Burkley for the direction of communication, but instead finds the claimed direction of communication (“to at least one first device,” and “to at least one second device”) in Lacy. We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “nothing in Lacy relates to ‘survey status alert indicat[es] that a survey team entered the facility.’ At best, Lacy teaches a user determining how its system is doing in case it were to be audited.” Appeal Br. 18-19. The feature that Appellant argues is not disclosed, i.e., an alert containing text “indicating that a survey team entered the facility,” is directed to mere content. But such content is non-functional descriptive material which does not affect the structure or function of the claimed system, in that it is just a message that indicates the observation that a team has entered a facility. Therefore, the textual of the message may not be relied on to distinguish over the cited prior art for purposes of patentability. See, e.g., In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (mere informational content of non-functional descriptive material is not entitled to patentable weight); see also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative). Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 22 Next, the Appellant contends that the “Office Action has provided no indication regarding the predictability of combining the various teachings of Lacy and Burkley,” and therefore, according to Appellant, “the Office Action must be using improper hindsight reconstruction.” Appeal Br. 21. When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Here, the field of endeavor, including communicating data over a choice from multiple communication networks, is a predictable field, because data are frequently transmitted over different communications networks, with an expectation of success. Burkley, for example, indicates a variety of possible communication options from which to choose: The communication path between the components of the FRCS including the field devices 20000 and the command and control system 10000 includes wireless connections, wired connections, and hybrid wireless/wired connections. The communication path also includes couplings or connections to or through networks including local area networks (LANs), metropolitan area networks (MANs), wide area networks (WANs), proprietary networks, interoffice or backend networks, and the Internet . . . as well as telephone lines, buses, and electronic mail messages. Burkley ¶ 77. Finally, Appellant argues “the Office Action improperly relies on the teachings from the Appellant’s [S]pecification to force several additions to Lacy,” and that “the Office Action’s rationale has been improperly gleaned from Appellant’s [S]pecification,” and thus uses “impermissible hindsight.” Appeal Br. 21. Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 23 We find this argument unpersuasive at least because the Examiner relies on a motivation that does not originate in Appellant’s disclosure. Specifically, the Examiner reasons that the modification to Lacy, to use Burkley’s radio network rather than Lacy’s application, is based on an “indication that any of the personnel are near by the facility, as taught by Burkley, to track accountable team members when all-hands-on-deck are needed during a medical catastrophe.” Non-Final Act. 7. For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection over Lacy and Burkley. We also sustain the rejection over Lacy, Burkley, and Setlur, because Appellant only argues that “Setlur fails to teach or suggest the missing limitations of claims 1 and 8.” Appeal Br. 22. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5-10, 12-14 101 Eligibility 1-3, 5-10, 12- 14 1-3, 5, 6, 8- 10, 12, 13 103 Lacy, Burkley 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13 7, 14 103 Lacy, Burkley, Setlur 7, 14 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5-10, 12- 14 Appeal 2021-001606 Application 15/620,245 24 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). AFFIRMED