CareFusion 303, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 22, 20212019005993 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/099,773 12/06/2013 Tom STEINHAUER 122295-6183 6870 80236 7590 01/22/2021 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (OC)(BD) 600 Anton Boulevard Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 EXAMINER TIEDEMAN, JASON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/22/2021 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): ocipdocketing@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOM STEINHAUER, TERRY LEE BLANSFIELD, LEONARD MULKOWSKY, and ANDRES JESUS CALDERON Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 Technology Center 3600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–40. Claims 1–20 are cancelled. 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 CareFusion 303, Inc. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for monitoring of patient sedation and pain therapy and the process of weaning ventilated patients off of the ventilator. Spec. ¶ 2. Representative Claim Representative claim 21 under appeal read as follows; 21. A machine-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a processor based on previously obtained data from one or more infusion pumps and one or more ventilators associated with one or more ventilated patients, infusion information for the one or more ventilated patients, the infusion information indicating infusion interruptions experienced by the one or more ventilated patients during each of several time segments occurring during previous administration of medications to the one or more ventilated patients; determining, by the processor, a pattern of a consecutive amount of time without interruption or with a fixed dosage within a predefined threshold for the time segments from the infusion information for the one or more ventilated patients; determining, by the processor, an optimal time segment based on the pattern; calculating, by the processor, one or more baseline thresholds for the medications for a current patient, the medications for the current patient being the same as the medications administered to the one or more ventilated patients and including sedatives and pain therapy drugs, the one or more baseline thresholds being calculated from actual dosages of the medications that were previously administered to the current patient during a previous time segment corresponding to the determined optimal time segment; periodically determining, in real time by the processor, a current dosage amount of the medications currently being Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 3 administered to the current patient during a respective time segment by an infusion pump, the current patient being currently ventilated by a ventilator; performing a periodic comparison, in real time by the processor while the current patient is being administered the medications by the infusion pump and while the current patient is being currently ventilated by the ventilator, of the current dosage amount to the one or more baseline thresholds, the periodic comparison being performed at a predetermined frequency; determining, by the processor based on the periodic comparing, a deviation in the current dosage amount that meets a threshold deviation from the one or more baseline thresholds; and in real time by the processor in response to the deviation: generating a marker regarding administration of the medications to the current patient and relating to a ventilator weaning process for the current patient, providing, to a client device associated with a care giver and remote from the processor, a notification indicating the current dosage amount deviates from a normal or acceptable dosage of medication administered to the patient and indicating that an event should be performed, and increasing the frequency of the periodic comparison or decreasing the respective time segment for future determining of dosage amounts being administered to the current patient. REJECTION Claims 21–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 2–9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We agree with the Examiner and highlight the following for emphasis. Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 4 Rejection and Arguments2 The Examiner determines that, but for the recitation of generic computer components, independent claim 21 encompasses a series of rules/steps for weaning a patient off a ventilator, where the steps are capable of being performed by a human. See Ans. 4–6. As found by the Examiner, this series of rules/steps covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people, and, thus, covers a certain method of organizing human activity. See id. at 6. Therefore, the Examiner determines claim 21 recites an abstract idea. See id.; see also Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner further finds the recited abstract idea (i.e., judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application. See Ans. 6–7; see also Final Act. 5–7. As found by the Examiner, claim 21 recites the additional element of a processor.3 See Ans. 6. As further found by the Examiner; the processor is not exclusively defined by Appellant, and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing/implementing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the idea. See id. at 6–7 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 93, 95, 100–102). 2 Except for general arguments with respect to the dependent claims, Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 19–20. As permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37, we decide the appeal based on claim 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In this decision, we also address Appellant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims. 3 The Examiner additionally finds that claim 33 also recites the additional element of the processor, and that claim 40 recites an additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium. See Ans. 4, 6. Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 5 Therefore, the Examiner determines that claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea. See Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 5–7. As found by the Examiner, and as previously indicated above, claim 21 recites the additional element of a processor, and the additional element is recited such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and does not provide an inventive concept. See Ans. 7. As further found by the Examiner, claim 21 recites the additional element of a client device, which the Examiner finds is described by Appellant’s Specification as a computer, which the Examiner interprets as a well-known, general-purpose computer that represents an element to which data is transmitted, and which the Examiner finds is extra-solution activity. See id. (citing Spec. ¶ 105). Claim 21 recites the additional elements of infusion pumps and ventilators, which the Examiner finds only serve as devices from which data is received (i.e., extra-solution activity) and perform functions that infusion pumps and ventilators generically perform. See Ans. 7–8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 19, 24). The Examiner further finds a well-known, general-purpose computer is a well-understood, routine, and conventional element. See Ans. 8. The Examiner additionally finds receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, and receiving and/or transmitting data, are all well-understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner. See id. The Examiner indicates that the findings regarding claim 21, described above, are equally applicable to independent claims 33 and 40. Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 6 See Ans. 4–8. The Examiner further makes similar findings regarding dependent claims 22–32 and 34–39. See Ans. 8–9. Appellant argues the Final Rejection mischaracterizes the claims as being “drawn to . . . determining a baseline dosage amount and comparing it,” and that the claims are directed to solving a problem with how to provide time-critical patient care alerts/notifications in a medical environment where circumstances are constantly changing via an unconventional improvement in the mechanism by which patient care systems provide alerts/notifications regarding time-sensitive patient data in a closed-loop feedback-based system. See Appeal Br. 12 (citing Final Act. 3). Appellant further argues claim 21 recites features that are more than a mental process because the recited features “cannot be performed in the human mind, and are not an observation, evaluation, judgment, or an opinion.” See Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant additionally argues the recited features of claim 21 are also more than “mere organization of human activity,” because claim 21 describes “programmatic activities involving an infusion pump and a ventilator,” “automatic adjustments to a frequency at which infusion data is analyzed,” and “automatic notification[s] to a remote device.” See id. at 16.4 Appellant additionally argues claim 21 includes additional elements that integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application, as claim 21 includes features that recite a particular application of elements to effect a particular treatment (i.e., weaning a patient from ventilation and 4 Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in finding that the claims are similar to the claims at issue in various court cases. See Appeal Br. 13. This appears to reference the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action. See Final Act. 4–5. We agree with the Examiner that this argument is moot in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published by the USPTO. See Ans. 11. Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 7 notifying a caregiver of a deviation in a drug dosage) for a medical condition (i.e., requiring ventilation while on medication), and these features are further recited in conjunction with particular machines (i.e., an infusion pump and a ventilator). See Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant asserts claim 21 includes additional elements related to an automatic process that “is not seen to be an abstract idea identified by the courts.” See id. at 17. Appellant further argues the recited method of claim 21 improves the process of weaning a patient off a ventilator. See id. at 17–18. Additionally, Appellant asserts claim 21 also describes “a specific way to solve the technical problem of maintaining a correct dosage of a medication, within established guidelines and/or thresholds, while the patient receiving the medication is being ventilated,” and thus, is “directed to a technical way to satisfy an existing problem, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” See id. at 18. Appellant further argues “the Final Rejection does not explain or show how the elements of [claim 21] are prevalent or in common use within the medical industry or the industry of managing patients on ventilation while being infused with a medication.” See Appeal Br. 19. Appellant additionally argues the features of claim 21 “include additional subject matter that is unconventional and thus involve an ‘inventive concept.’” See id. Appellant additionally argues each of the dependent claims recite “further specific improvements in the mechanism by which patient care systems provide alerts/notifications regarding time-sensitive patient data, and maintaining a correct dosage of a medication while the patient receiving the medication is being ventilated,” and is “a non-conventional and non- generic arrangement of elements that, when combined and considered as a whole, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.” See id. at 20. Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 8 Principles of Law Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section: “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories, the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first to consider whether the claim is “directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine “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 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)). That is, we examine the claim for an “inventive concept,” “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, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73). In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 9 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).5 Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and 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. Abstract Idea To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify the claim’s specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter 5 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ peg_oct_2019_update.pdf). Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 10 groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity; or (c) mental processes. Independent claim 21 recites, inter alia, “a machine-implemented method,” comprising the following steps: (1) receiving, . . . infusion information for the one or more ventilated patients, the infusion information indicating infusion interruptions experienced by the one or more ventilated patients during each of several time segments occurring during previous administration of medications to the one or more ventilated patients; (2) determining . . . a pattern of a consecutive amount of time without interruption or with a fixed dosage within a predefined threshold for the time segments from the infusion information for the one or more ventilated patients; (3) determining . . . an optimal time segment based on the pattern; (4) calculating . . . one or more baseline thresholds for the medications for a current patient, the medications for the current patient being the same as the medications administered to the one or more ventilated patients and including sedatives and pain therapy drugs, the one or more baseline thresholds being calculated from actual dosages of the medications that were previously administered to the current patient during a previous time segment corresponding to the determined optimal time segment; (5) periodically determining . . . a current dosage amount of the medications currently being administered to the current patient during a respective time segment by an infusion pump, the current patient being currently ventilated by a ventilator; Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 11 (6) performing a periodic comparison . . . while the current patient is being administered the medications by the infusion pump and while the current patient is being currently ventilated by the ventilator, of the current dosage amount to the one or more baseline thresholds, the periodic comparison being performed at a predetermined frequency; (7) determining . . . based on the periodic comparing, a deviation in the current dosage amount that meets a threshold deviation from the one or more baseline thresholds; and (8) in response to the deviation: generating a marker regarding administration of the medications to the current patient and relating to a ventilator weaning process for the current patient, providing, . . . a notification indicating the current dosage amount deviates from a normal or acceptable dosage of medication administered to the patient and indicating that an event should be performed, and increasing the frequency of the periodic comparison or decreasing the respective time segment for future determining of dosage amounts being administered to the current patient. Appeal Br. 22–23. Consistent with the Examiner’s finding, the aforementioned steps are steps for determining a baseline dosage amount and comparing it to a current dosage amount for a patient, and the steps are further related to a process of weaning the patient off a ventilator. See Ans. 4–6. Such steps manage interactions between people, and thus, fits squarely within the human activity organization category of the Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing human activity including Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 12 managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). Additionally, although not necessary to affirm the Examiner’s rejection, we conclude the aforementioned steps can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, and thus, also fit squarely within the mental processes category of the Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (indicating that mental processes are concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)).6 That the abstract idea recited in claim 21 can either be categorized as a certain method of organizing human activity or a mental process does not alter the Examiner’s underlying finding that claim 21 recites an abstract idea. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240–41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be 6 If a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146–47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While the Supreme Court has altered the § 101 analysis since Cyber Source in cases like Mayo and Alice, we continue to ‘treat[ ] 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.’” (brackets in original) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016))); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson[, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)].”). Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 13 described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.”); see also MPEP § 2106.04 (“in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite [multiple abstract ideas], an examiner should identify the claim as reciting [the multiple abstract ideas] for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record”). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner has not mischaracterized claim 21 in analyzing the claim under the Guidance. Instead, as called for by the Guidance, the Examiner has identified the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea and determined that the identified limitations fall within the human activity organization category of the Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Appellant’s argument that claim 21 is more than the mere organization of human activity is also not persuasive. As found by the Examiner, the steps recited in claim 21, encompass steps of a process of weaning a patient off a ventilator, which, but for the recitation of “a processor,” encompass steps that involve managing an interaction between people (e.g., a caregiver and a patient). See Ans. 5–6. Further, Appellant’s argument that claim 21 is more than a mere mental process is also not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s finding that the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity. See Ans. 11. Further, the mere recitation of “processor,” “infusion pumps,” “ventilators,” and “client device,” does not turn a mental process into patent-eligible subject matter. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375. Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 14 Integration of Judicial Exception into a Practical Application Although claim 21 recites a judicial exception, we nevertheless must still determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses 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. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. We therefore (1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See id. Here, the only elements recited in claim 21 beyond the abstract idea are “a processor,” “one or more infusion pumps,” “one or more ventilators,” and “a client device.” See Appeal Br. 22–23. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claim as a whole because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. See Ans. 6–7. Further, the claim does not specify what is done with the generated notification indicating the determined deviation of a current dosage amount for a patient and a baseline dosage amount, and thus, the claim does not recite a technological improvement to an underlying computer or other technology. Appellant’s argument that claim 21 recites a particular application of elements to effect a particular treatment for a medical condition is not persuasive because the recited elements of the claim do not specifically describe the particular treatment being applied to the medical condition, but Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 15 instead, merely describe determining a baseline dosage amount and comparing it to a current dosage amount. Further, we agree with the Examiner that the collection of data from the recited “infusion pumps” and “ventilators” is mere extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Ans. 13. Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 21 either improves the process of weaning a patient off a ventilator or is directed to a specific way of solving a technical problem. Instead, as previously described above, the claim does not specify what is done with the generated notification indicating the determined deviation of a current dosage amount for a patient and a baseline dosage amount. Thus, the claim does not recite a technological improvement to an underlying computer or other technology. Thus, claim 21 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 21: (1) does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Inventive Concept Because we determine claim 21 is “directed to” a judicial exception, we consider whether claim 21 recites an “inventive concept.” Under the Guidance, if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, we then look to whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 16 “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); 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. As previously described, the additional elements recited in claim 21 are “a processor,” “one or more infusion pumps,” “one or more ventilators,” and “a client device.” See Appeal Br. 22–23. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. See Ans. 8. Further, Appellant’s Specification provides evidence that the claimed “processor” is a generic computer component performing generic computer functions that was well-understood, routine, and conventional to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, as Appellant’s Specification describes that the claimed “processor” is “embedded . . . or coupled [to] . . . any . . . sort of electronic device” that “retrieves instructions to execute and data to process in order to execute the processes of the subject disclosure.” See Spec. ¶¶ 93, 95; see also Ans. 8. Similarly, Appellant’s Specification also provides evidence that the claimed “client device” is also a generic computer component performing generic computer functions that was well- understood, routine, and conventional to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, as Appellant’s Specification describes that the claimed “client device” is “a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described in this specification.” See Spec. ¶ 105; see also Ans. 7–8 (citing Spec. ¶ 105). Further, Appellant’s Specification also Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 17 provides evidence that the claimed “one or more infusion pumps” and “one or more ventilators” merely serve as devices from which data is received and perform functions that infusion pumps and ventilators generally perform, as Appellant’s Specification describes that an infusion pump “[administers] sedation and pain therapy to [a] patient,” that a ventilator “[provides] ventilation to the patient,” and that “information is collected directly from these devices.” See Spec. ¶¶ 19, 24–26; see also Ans. 7–8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 19, 24). Appellant’s argument that the Final Rejection did not explain or show how the elements of claim 21 are prevalent or in common use is not persuasive, because the Examiner cited portions of Appellant’s Specification which disclose that the aforementioned elements of the claims are well- understood, routine, and conventional, as described above. See Ans. 7–8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 19, 24–26, 105). With respect to Appellant’s argument that claim 21 includes subject matter that is unconventional, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence on the record that the elements of claim 21 are arranged in a particular matter that is non- conventional or non-generic. See Ans. 16. Further, with respect to Appellant’s argument regarding the dependent claims, we agree with the Examiner that the dependent claims merely further describe the abstract idea, do not provide a technology solution to a technological problem, and do not provide any conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements. See Ans. 17. Conclusion For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 21 is “directed to” an abstract idea, and does not recite an “inventive concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 and Appeal 2019-005993 Application 14/099,773 18 the remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21–40 101 Eligibility 21–40 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation